Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

STANDARD LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Sheltered Workshops

Mr. Hannam: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will take action to prevent redundancies at sheltered workshops.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Harold Walker): Decisions about redundancies in sheltered workshops are a matter for those who are responsible for their management. My Department has relaxed its rules about financial support, to avoid redundancy where possible but, regrettably, in a few cases local management has been unable to prevent it occurring.

Mr. Hannam: Is the Minister aware of the deep concern felt about the failure of his Department to prevent the redundancies of nine workers at the Exeter sheltered workshop, despite the offers of other workers to share work and reduce their hours to prevent this type of unemployment? Does this not run contrary to the declaration in his recent statement about unemployment among disabled people?

Mr. Walker: I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that responsibility for the Exeter workshop and its management rests with the Devon County Council. I share his great regret that the lack of work

has caused this situation. I hope that by raising this matter he will have drawn the attention of those responsible for the flow of work to the need to increase it.

Mr. Marten: Is there any figure for redundancies in sheltered workshops?

Mr. Walker: I cannot give an overall figure, though I know that it is very small. There are difficulties in places other than Exeter. One or two other workshops have experienced some problems. If the hon. Member wishes, I shall write to him with the information he seeks.

Wales

Mr. Wyn Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has for the relief of unemployment in Wales.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Foot): Of course, I recognise that the unemployment situation is extremely serious, but Wales has already benefited and will continue to benefit from the series of selective manpower measures announced since the autumn, which are designed to mitigate the worst effects of unemployment. One hundred and sixty projects have been approved under the Job Creation Programme, providing a total of 1,539 jobs, the temporary employment subsidy has saved 1,718 jobs, and applications in respect of 1,751 school leavers have been approved under the Recruitment Subsidy Scheme for school leavers. In addition, the whole of Wales has assisted area status.

Mr. Roberts: I appreciate the Government's efforts, but is the Secretary of State aware that the 25 per cent. rate of VAT on domestic electrical appliances is causing redundancies and unemployment? Is he aware of the situation at the Hotpoint factory in my constituency, and the Hoover factory in Merthyr, where there have been delays in the creation of about 3,000 jobs because of this VAT rate?

Mr. Foot: I am fully aware of the situation at the Hotpoint factory and even more so of that at the Hoover factory in Merthyr. My hon. Friends the Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) and hon. Friends from other parts of Wales have made representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer which I am sure he will take into account. I hope


that the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) will consider some of the other factors at Hotpoint as well.

Mr. Henderson: Bearing in mind the news we have heard today, can the Secretary of State say what prospects there are for employment in Wales or elsewhere for people aged 60 or over, with rather limited experience?

Mr. Foot: This is a very sensitive subject. Opportunities are always opening at the most extraordinary moments, but I do not think the hon. Member should count his chickens before they are finally dead.

Sir A. Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total number of additional redundancies in North Wales at 1st March 1976.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Fraser): I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that, as at 1st March, redundancies affecting about 780 people had been recorded as due to occur in North Wales at a subsequent date.

Sir A. Meyer: Is the Minister aware that with the recently announced redundancies at Courtaulds and at ITT in Rhyl a catastrophic situation is rapidly sliding out of control? Is he further aware that the Government's job creation programme is like trying to stop a tank with a pea-shooter? Will the Minister do something about unemployment and see that the whole area is given development area status?

Mr. Fraser: I recognise the problem of the redundancies at Courtaulds, which were announced on 27th February, whereby about 600 employees will be made redundant. All the services of my Department and of the Manpower Services Commission will be made available. Under the job creation programme and other employment measures about 1,400 jobs have so far been saved or created in North Wales. That is a useful contribution to what I agree is a difficult problem. The question of development area status is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry.

Temporary Employment Subsidy

Mr. Gould: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many jobs

have been saved by the granting of the temporary employment subsidy.

Mr. John Fraser: As at 5th March, 23,133 jobs have been saved.

Mr. Gould: Given the success of this relatively modest scheme and bearing in mind the findings of some economists that it costs less to subsidise jobs than to pay unemployment and redundancy benefits, will my hon. Friend extend the scheme substantially, for example, by raising the amount of the subsidy?

Mr. Fraser: The proposition that it is cheaper to keep people at work than to pay them unemployment benefit has been in the forefront of our minds. The review of the temporary employment subsidy is a continuing one. We have already made changes in the scheme on three occasions in the light of experience and I do not rule out more changes in future.

Sir John Hall: In so far as the subsidy encourages employers to retain employees in excess of their production requirement, could it not lead to industrial inefficiency?

Mr. Fraser: It do not believe that to be so. It is defensible to try to keep people in employment rather than put them in the dole queue. One of the criteria for granting the subsidy is that the firm should have long-term viability. It may have to re-recruit skilled workers when it returns to full production. The scheme is fully justified.

Mr. Watkinson: Is my hon. Friend aware that here is still a lack of knowledge about this scheme among industrial employers? Is he aware that, as I go round my constituency, I find employers who are still in ignorance of the scheme? Will he therefore do his utmost to broadcast its merits to all employers?

Mr. Fraser: We shall see that the scheme is as widely known as possible. Hon. Members can always draw it to the attention of local employers, as I have done in my constituency.

Incomes Policy

Mr. Madel: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what suggestions have been made to him by the TUC for a flat rate or percentage rate for the next phase of the incomes policy; and if he


will make a statement on current discussions with the TUC on the next phase of that policy.

Mr. Foot: We have continuous discussions with representatives of the TUC about various aspects of pay policy, but no specific suggestions as described by the hon. Member have been put forward, and I do not think that any question of a detailed statement to the House about the next phase yet arises.

Mr. Madel: Is not the main concern of the TUC the creation of more jobs quickly, rather than higher pay? If the Government can bring themselves to concentrate—which may be difficult at present—will they publish suggested guidelines for phase 2, which should be a mix of percentage and flat rate but with an overall figure less than the present £6 a week?

Mr. Foot: It is true that the representatives of the TUC, like the rest of the country, are deeply concerned about the level of unemployment. That is one of the main considerations in their minds. I do not believe that the best way to get a new pay policy for the period starting on 1st August this year is for the Government to lay down the guidelines. It is much better for the Government to have discussions with the TUC and reach agreement with the TUC, as we did last time. The reason why the present policy works is that we went about it the right way.

Mr. George Rodgers: Would the Secretary of State care to comment on the initiative taken by the leaders of the three major trade unions in asking for consultations to be held with the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party and the Parliamentary Labour Party?

Mr. Foot: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that those consultations should go ahead. I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that the statement made by Mr. Jones, Mr. David Basnett and Mr. Hugh Scanlon is of major importance in the history of the Government and the country—constructive, intelligent, and highly topical.

British Leyland (Chairman)

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is satisfied that the salary paid to the new

part-time Chairman of British Leyland is in accordance with the current pay policy.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): Yes, Sir.

Mr. Skinner: Does my hon. Friend take the view that trade unionists who have been subject to the £6 pay policy—and who knows what will happen next?—are appalled by the decision to set on the 62-year-old Sir Richard Dobson at a salary of £22,500 for a three-day week? Will they suggest, incidentally, that he will do even less work once he gets to know the way to the building? Does it not make matters worse to know that Sir Richard Dobson was handed about £80,000 by the firm for which he previously worked?

Mr. Booth: I should certainly be surprised if there were many part-time workers in Bolsover or Barrow-in-Furness who would be offered a salary as high as this. It is within the pay policy because it is exactly the same salary as was paid to Sir Richard Dobson's predecessor. As to the salary he received from the British-American Tobacco Company, I understand that that salary was fixed before the current pay policy.

Mr. Stokes: As jobs in the public sector are usually a bed of nails, how can we expect good men to take them unless they are paid the market rate for the job?

Mr. Booth: I do not defend the salary or advocate it on the ground that it is the market rate for the job. I merely say that it is consistent with the pay policy because it was established in terms which complied with the pay policy.

Mr. Prior: Why is the right hon. Gentleman so coy about someone who is 62 years of age? Is not 62 rather a good age at which to take on new responsibilities?

Mr. Booth: I am not coy about the age of 62; I am worried about the unemployment of people whether they are over or under 60 years of age.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: My hon. Friend is aware that Sir Richard was at a loss to know what to do with the £80,000 he received from his previous employer. Would my hon. Friend suggest that he should donate it to the Social Services Department in my constituency?

Mr. Booth: It is not for me to suggest how people should spend their present or previous salaries. Being involved in questions of pay policy, I have enough difficulty in determining what those salaries are to be.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is it not dangerous to snipe at higher salaries, bearing in mind that the failure of an American company to find a chief executive in this country has led to the removal of the company's headquarters to the Continent?

Mr. Booth: No. Decisions on the location of company headquarters do not depend solely or mainly on salary considerations. They raise factors which are of great importance to the economy of this country and its manufacturing industry.

Fishing Industry

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what were the numbers both directly and indirectly employed in the fishing industry in each of the past five years, both nationally and in the port of Kingston upon Hull.

Mr. Booth: My Department can provide separate information for the fishing industry but not for employment indirectly associated with it.
As the reply consists of a table of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the Official Report, but I would like to say that the figures show that there was a rise in the number of employees employed in the fishing industry in Kingston upon Hull from 1·8 thousand to 2·2 thousand between 1971 and 1974. Over the same period the numbers employed in the fishing industry in Great Britain as a whole fell from 10·8 thousand to 9·7 thousand.

Mr. Wall: The Minister will be aware that these figures, taken over the fishing ports of the country as a whole, show a considerable degree of unemployment. Will he consult his right hon. Friend and suggest that the operating subsidies should be reintroduced on a short-term basis at least until the common fisheries policy and new limit lines have been settled?

Mr. Booth: That is largely a question for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The industry's employment prospects are

closely linked with the question of fishing opportunity, the reappraisal of the EEC common fisheries policy and the outcome of international negotiations. My Department is very concerned with the employment aspects of these negotiations, and in our discussions with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture we shall take heed of what the hon. Gentleman said.

Following is the information:


EMPLOYEES IN EMPLOYMENT, FISHING INDUSTRY


June in each year
Great Britain
(Thousands) Kingston upon Hull


1974
…
…
…
9·7
2·2


1973
…
…
…
11·2
2·3


1972
…
…
…
10·6
1·9


1971
…
…
…
10·8
1·8

These figures relate 18th June in each year from 1971, when the current employment series began, to 1974, the latest date for which it is available.

ILO Conference

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish as a Green Paper the views and proposals of Her Majesty's Government which will be presented to the forthcoming ILO World Conference on Employment.

Mr. Harold Walker: No, Sir.

Mr. Hooley: That is a straightforward but rather disappointing answer. Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a great deal of interest in this conference outside the formal ranks of the trade union movement? Will he consider inviting interested individuals and bodies for discussion before the Government representatives take part in the international conference?

Mr. Walker: I expected that my hon. Friend would find the answer disappointing, but he must have regard to the tripartite character of the ILO conference and to the fact that it also concerns matters other than unemployment. In correspondence I have already reassured my hon. Friend that I shall seek to make the ILO policy document as widely available as possible to those interested and shall welcome comments on it.

Mr. Hayhoe: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of facilitating the inclusion amongst workers' delegations of members delegated by non-TUC unions who represent a significant and important element in the work force?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman knows the traditional methods by which people are selected to attend ILO conferences, and I see no reason to deviate from that practice.

West Midlands

Mr. Rooker: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on employment prospects in the West Midlands.

Mr. Foot: Over the last year or so employment prospects in the West Midlands have deteriorated seriously—principally as a result of the general economic recession. However, the area benefits from the measures that the Government have introduced to alleviate the worst effects of unemployment and from the considerable assistance which has been given to the motor vehicle, machine tool and ferrous foundry industries. Employment prospects in the West Midlands will improve substantially as the national economy begins to expand.

Mr. Rooker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the people in the West Midlands are outraged at the loss of manufacturing jobs and are sick and tired of being told that the aid to Chrysler and British Leyland is the Government's contribution to the tragic economic circumstances of the West Midlands? Will he ensure that there is a Minister from his Department at next Monday's meeting called by the Secretary of State for Industry on this very problem?

Mr. Foot: I dare say that we shall have a representative at the discussions that are to take place. I went to the West Midlands a few weeks ago and on my return I discussed the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. It is partly as a result of those discussions that the meeting next Monday is to take place.
I fully appreciate the deep concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), but I believe also that the assistance the Government gave to these firms did a great deal for the West Midlands, and continues to do so. I quite agree that much more needs to be done.

Mr. Bulmer: Is the Secretary of State aware that the prospects for those leaving school in the West Midlands in the forth-

coming year are worse than they were last year, and will he tell the House what special measures he proposes to introduce to help them?

Mr. Foot: We introduced measures to help school leavers last year and will at the appropriate time announce our measures for assisting them in the future. The Job Creation Scheme has been of some assistance in this respect, and many of the projects that have come forward from the West Midlands have been accepted by the Manpower Services Commission.

Mr. Park: Does my right hon. Friend really believe that the statement made today refusing assisted area status to the West Midlands is likely to give any further encouragement to the people of the West Midlands in pulling themselves up by their bootstraps? Is he aware that industries are still leaving the West Midlands because of the regional policy—for example, Polypak, at Halesowen?

Mr. Foot: I recognise, as my hon. Friend says, that there is strong pressure in the West Midlands for the alteration of the boundaries for special development status. That is primarily a matter for the Department of Industry, but I recognise how strong those representations are. However, that would affect many other parts of the country as well. In the meantime, I hope that my hon. Friend will acknowledge what the Government have been doing in that respect. Certainly it was acknowledged by trade unionists when I was in the West Midlands. They recognised that the Government have been extremely flexible in the acceptance of certificates.

Mr. Prior: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people, both in this House and in the West Midlands, feel that the problems are much deeper this time and will not be solved just by the upturn in the economy? Would the right hon. Gentleman consider a relaxation of IDC policy, which might do more to increase morale and effort in the West Midlands, which many people now believe to be an area which has been starved of new development for a period of years and badly needs fresh development?

Mr. Foot: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the question of IDCs and their acceptance is a matter for the


Department of Industry. As I have said, the Government have been extremely willing to grant these certificates, and the figures show that there have been very few refusals. When I was in the West Midlands the people there wanted to make better known the fact that the Government have been extremely eager to grant certificates when there has been pressure for them.
As to special development area status, the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that that matter does not concern the West Midlands alone.

Mrs. Renée Short: Notwithstanding my right hon. Friend's honeyed words about what will happen in the future in respect of help for school leavers, and so on, is he aware that in the West Midlands at the present time we have an unemployment figure that is higher than the national average? Bearing in mind the criteria given in answer to an earlier question, why did he not help Norton-Villiers in its attempt to keep its factory working?

Mr. Foot: The reply concerning Norton-Villiers has been given many times in this House. As to general assistance to the West Midlands, the Government are certainly considering all the time how further help can be given.

Graduates

Mr. Michael Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current level of unemployment among those who graduated with first degrees during 1975.

Mr. John Fraser: I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that this information is not available, as the unemployment figures do not separately identify persons in this category.

Mr. Marshall: Leaving aside the unsatisfactory nature of that answer, does the Minister not agree that there is evidence here of an appalling problem of a total waste of trained human resources? Does he not further agree that this is itself an indictment of the Government, particularly in relation to the disincentive to industry generally, which is unable to mop up this pool of talent?

Mr. Fraser: If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that it would be a good idea

to have more graduates in industry, he is right—and the answer lies as much with industry as with the Government. There are certainly areas in which there is a shortage of graduates to go into industry. A report from our Manpower Services Commission shows that there is an unsatisfied demand for accountants, computer scientists, and electronic and electrical engineers.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Will the Minister say, as a matter of great topical importance, whether the Government are making any special provision for graduates of University College, Oxford?

Mr. Fraser: No, Sir.

Mr. Christopher Price: Will my hon. Friend repudiate the proposition that there is something inherently more serious about graduate unemployment than there is about unemployment generally? Does he agree that the Government's job is to reduce unemployment across the board rather than to concentrate on special areas of this kind?

Mr. Fraser: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend that the fact that a person is a graduate does not confer upon him a special privilege in the employment market. We must have proper regard to everybody's need for employment, and not just those with a qualification. Equally, we must try to make sure that those trained in a particular area are able to go into employment and do not lose the skills they have gained during a period of training or a period at university.

Unemployed Persons

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current level of unemployment in the United Kingdom in Scotland and in the West Midlands, respectively; and what steps he is taking to reduce these levels.

Mr. John Fraser: At 12th February, the rates of unemployment were 5·6 per cent. in the United Kingdom, 6·8 per cent. in Scotland and 5·7 per cent in the West Midlands.
The most important steps for the reduction of unemployment are those to bring inflation under control, and we are taking these. In addition, a wide range of measures have been introduced,


and others are being considered, to mitigate unemployment.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is it not a fact that unemployment has been growing at a faster rate in the West Midlands than in almost any other part of the United Kingdom? Does this not make a lunacy of the policy of stealing jobs from the West Midlands in order to take them elsewhere? Will the Minister press, within his Department and elsewhere, for the bureaucratic system of the IDCs to be scrapped?

Mr. Fraser: If my right hon. Friend had listened to the replies given earlier by my right hon. Friend, he would know that the IDC policy in the West Midlands is operated flexibly. When I have been to meetings there many people have told me that to blame it all on the IDC policy is a mistake, and I think they are right in that respect. It is true that there are no development area aids to the West Midlands, but we have to consider development area aids in terms of long-term structural problems and other problems which we hope will be of a temporary nature.

Mr. Henderson: Will the Minister confirm that the rate of unemployment in Scotland has been consistently higher than in any other part of the United Kingdom, and that we find ourselves—[Interruption.] Indeed, if we can make this comment to the peanut gallery on the Tribune side here—[Interruption]—it has been disgraceful compared to every other progressive small European country. Will the Minister accept that the whining coming from Midlands Members sounds very strange in Scottish ears, as they have never raised their voices about Scottish unemployment in the past?

Mr. Fraser: I repudiate that the rate of unemployment in Scotland has risen dramatically. The unemployment situation in Scotland has improved relative to the position in the rest of the United Kingdom—not least because of the development aid and the assistance which has gone to Scotland from the Government of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Does my hon. Friend realise that there is over 9 per cent. unemployment in the Mexborough and district employment exchange area?

Does he also realise that the Swinton Hotpoint factory has already announced that some redundancies will take place in the near future? Will my hon. Friend do something special for this area, where unemployment will rise to 12 per cent. unless something is done?

Mr. Fraser: My hon. Friend has tabled a Written Question, which I shall answer later, about special provisions for this area. I understand that the Hotpoint factory to which he has referred is on short-time working at present. No doubt my hon. Friend will also want to make representations to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in connection with VAT.

Mr. Stokes: Is the Minister aware that industry in the West Midlands—as represented by both employers and employees—want the Government to get off its back, reduce taxation and allow it is make profits?

Mr. Fraser: I think that the people of the West Midlands are also glad of the public expenditure, which comes from taxation, that has gone to save the jobs at Alfred Herbert, British Leyland and Chrysler, and which I am sure the hon. Gentleman, in his heart of hearts, actually opposes.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the employment prospect this year of those currently unemployed.

Mr. Ioan Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a statement on the current level of unemployment.

Mr. Foot: The next monthly figures will be published next week, on 23rd March. Of course they will still show an appalling high level of unemployment. However, even under present harsh conditions there is a considerable volume of turnover on the register and many of the unemployed do have a good chance of re-entering employment. I expect the number of vacancies to increase gradually this year.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Welcome though the Government's measures have been there are still far too many people unemployed for far too long. Does my right hon.


Friend accept that this is especially severe in regions like Merseyside, where the people have had a dismal past and face a dismal future? Will he not take action now and press my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put into effect some reflationary measures?

Mr. Foot: I fully accept that Merseyside is one of the areas most hardest hit. Certainly my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be taking into account all the representations that have been made to him for further measures which can be of real assistance in dealing with the present unemployment level.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will the Secretary of State have a look at the ridiculous system whereby assisted area boundaries run along the boundaries of employment office areas? Witnesses from his own Department told the Expenditure Committee that the boundaries of employment areas depend on journeys by bicycle to and from employment offices, because that was the basis on which we proceeded more than a quarter of a century ago. Can we get away from this nonsense to something more real?

Mr. Foot: I think that the hon. Gentleman has been misinformed. The travel-to-work areas to which he referred were, I think, overhauled most recently in 1968. I do not believe that they can be changed considerably from time to time, but a time will come when there should be a general review of the special development areas.

Mr. Evans: Does my right hon. Friend realise that he has been particularly successful in getting the co-operation of the trade union movement to reduce the number of industrial disputes and the rate of inflation? Will he now meet the TUC leaders, with a view to producing some positive plans to bring down the rate of unemployment?

Mr. Foot: All the plans that we introduced in the three packages in September and December of last year and in February of this year, had been discussed with the trade unions. It was partly on their recommendations and advice that we improved those schemes and we shall certainly continue to do so. However, it is also the fact that at all the meetings I

have had with the trade union leaders they have emphasised their strong feelings about the present level of unemployment. Certainly that is one of the factors the Government must take into account when securing another round of the pay policy.

Mr. Adley: Does the Secretary of State recall that page 1 of the February 1974 Labour Manifesto told people that the economic crisis took the form of fear for their jobs and that the Labour Party would change all that? Does he not think that his Government's performance since then has been squalid and disgraceful, and will he follow the example of his right hon. Friend?

Mr. Foot: The two manifestos on which the Labour Party fought and won the two elections said that this country faced a major crisis of inflation, unemployment and of our general system. We are gradually carrying out some parts of what the manifestos said. Some of us would like to carry out some parts even faster, and the more encouragement we receive from the Opposition the faster, I hope, we shall go.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Will my right hon. Friend ask the Manpower Services Commission to look at the despairing situation of people who have been subject to accidents in industry or on the roads, who have been retrained and who have extremely grave difficulty in finding jobs after retraining? Will he look at this matter again?

Mr. Foot: We are doing our best to aid the disabled workers in this difficult situation. The Manpower Services Commission and my Department are doing what they can in that respect.

Shoreham

Mr. Luce: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will pay an official visit to the port of Shoreham.

Mr. Booth: My right hon. Friend at present has no plans to do so.

Mr. Luce: Will the Minister send a message to the Secretary of State informing him that I would generally warmly welcome the chance to show him the port of Shoreham, as over the past 10 years the port had attracted a growing amount of trade from Scheme ports due to increased viability and efficiency? As


the Dock Labour Scheme will damage the efficiency of the port and will insult the dockers who do not want privileged nannying, will he either withdraw the pernicious Bill or follow the Prime Minister's excellent example and resign?

Mr. Booth: If the hon. Gentleman cares to make an objective examination of the position of both Scheme and non-Scheme ports over the past 10 years, he will discover that the port to which he refers is one of a number of both Scheme and non-Scheme ports which have improved their trading position. I do not think that any industrial relations difficulties in the ports stem from the operation of the Scheme. The new proposals which we shall be making are intended to take account of the rapid run-down of labour in ports throughout the country—a rundown which can, in itself, give rise to grave industrial difficulties.

Apprentices (Construction Industry)

Mr. Michael Latham: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what action he is taking, in conjunction with employers and trade unions in the construction industry, to prevent apprentices currently in training having to be discharged because of shortage of work; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Harold Walker: The volume of work in the construction industry is a matter for my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Training Services Agency, however, in co-operation with the Construction Industry Training Board, has enabled a range of assistance to be available to continue the training of redundant apprentices.

Mr. Latham: Is it not appalling that at least 1,000 apprentices have been discharged over the past five months because there is no work for them to do? Has the Minister nothing constructive to say about that?

Mr. Walker: The figure is rather lower than the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but I share his concern and disquiet, whatever the figure may be. The National Federation of Building Trades Employers and the Construction Industry Training Board, with the help of the TSA, are currently developing proposals that will

provide more opportunities for redundant apprentices to be given training and experience in genuine work situations. Of course, there is also available from the Training Services Agency, which helps in this respect, an adoption grant of £750, which is fully funded by the Agency. I ask the hon. Gentleman to look at the problem created by the London borough of Barnet, which has just required the Brick Development Association to terminate its own training school at Colindale.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Is my hon. Friend aware that with a few exceptions the private building firms are taking on no apprentices and it is the council direct labour departments which are training the younger workers? Therefore, will he permit local authorities to take on building work for neighbouring authorities where the request is made?

Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend knows that the question of the range of activities which local authority direct works departments are permitted to carry out is a matter for the Secretary of State for the Environment. I shall confirm what he has said about the useful work that the direct works departments are doing in training apprentices. In particular the City of Manchester, whose direct works departments I shall visit very soon, has a splendid record. I understand that it is the biggest single employer of apprentices in the building industry in Manchester——

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is a limit to the length of answers, as well as questions.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Is the Minister aware that this is a very serious problem and that it does not make sense for the Government to be spending extra money on training if at the same time the sand is dropping out of the bottom? Does he accept that it is important that these boys should be kept on to finish their training or they will become unskilled? Will the hon. Gentleman and his Department use some imagination on this?

Mr. Walker: I was about to say in reply to the previous question that it is crucially important to maintain numbers in training and to increase them.—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not know what is wrong with the House this afternoon.

Mr. Walker: It is crucial—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister must have a chance to reply to the question.

Mr. Walker: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was trying to say that it is crucially important to maintain numbers undergoing training.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: asked the Secretary of State for Employment by how much unemployment has risen in the past two years.

Mr. Booth: Between February 1974 and February 1976, the numbers unemployed in Great Britain increased by 654,234.

Mr. Bottomley: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what will be the contribution of pay restraint in the next two years towards reducing unemployment, and what was the contribution of the pay explosion in 1974 to increasing it?

Mr. Booth: I do not think it is possible to make any precise calculations of the effect of pay policy on levels of unemployment. The ability of the Government to finance a number of steps to mitigate the worst effects of unemployment has been realised as a result of co-operation between the trade unions and the Government on pay policy and a number of other matters.

Mr. Fernyhough: Will my right hon. Friend say by how much unemployment would have arisen if the Government had implemented the public expenditure cuts demanded by the Opposition?

Mr. Booth: There is no doubt that if the Government had followed the policies recommended by the Opposition—policies involving massive cuts in public expenditure—we would by now have had a very high level of unemployment. That is why it is of the maximum importance to insist upon a policy that will result in no immediate cuts in public expenditure.

Mr. Prior: How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile the figure of 654,000 additional people out of work in the last

two years with the statement in the Labour Party's manifesto about Labour getting people back to work?

Mr. Booth: I reconcile that by reference to the fact that the policies pursued by the Government have held the level of unemployment in this country below that of many other countries in a similar trading position.

Mr. Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that increasing unemployment is due to a crisis of capitalism? Does he accept that we should be introducing more, not less planning? Should not that planning include selective import controls and a prohibition on individual companies to take abroad work which is often the result of design and development carried out by British workpeople? For example, should we not stop firms moving factories to Japan?

Mr. Booth: The greatest lay-offs, redundancies and rises in unemployment stem from developments in the private sector. There is a clear indication to support the contention of my hon. Friend that there must be more effective economic planning to deal with this situation. Both of us are pledged to an election manifesto which makes precisely that proposal.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRESS (ROYAL COMMISSION)

Mr. Blaker: asked the Prime Minister whether he has yet received the Interim Report of the Royal Commission on the Press.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade hopes to make a statement tomorrow, when the Report is published.

Mr. Blaker: Is the Prime Minister aware that, bearing in mind his announced intention to resign, I could not possibly ask him the supplementary question I had in mind when I put this Question down? However, before he leaves office will he undertake to satisfy the curiosity of the House and the Press on one matter? Will he say, perhaps in his next volume of memoirs, what he meant when he talked in September 1974 about "cohorts of distinguished journalists"?

The Prime Minister: I am sorry that the hon. Member felt unable to ask the


question, because I have the answer ready. Even he will know that his supplementary question does not arise out of the main Question. He will probably have heard, and if not he will read, that the Interim Report deals with economic issues of the Press. What I said, and what I shall give evidence on to the Royal Commission, related to other aspects of the Royal Commission's work.

Mrs. Thatcher: In spite of the political battles, we wish the Prime Minister well, personally, in his retirement. His decision has come at a time of great financial difficulty and of unprecedented parliamentary events. Is he aware that the best way to resolve the uncertainty and to give the new Prime Minister the authority re-required would be to put the matter to the people for their vote?

The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Lady for her opening words. They are in accordance with the traditions of this House. She is absolutely right, in that, whatever differences may divide us in this House on policy and political philosophy, on occasions such as this nice, kind words like hers have been uttered. I hope that I shall not spoil the atmosphere by saying that I totally reject the second part of her question—I am not sure that she is all that keen on it either. [Interruption.] My reason for saying that is that there has been a certain degree of hubris about recent by-elections. The right hon. Lady should remember that the Conservatives lost Brosmgrove the year after they came to office and that a majority of 11,800 was turned into a majority, the other way, of 1,800. Macclesfield was nearly as bad, in the following year. She will find that the swings in the recent by-elections are much smaller than is normal at this stage in a Government's life.

Mr. Thorpe: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Jeremy Thorpe.

Mrs. Thatcher: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Will the right hon. Gentleman do the right hon. Lady the courtesy of giving way?

Mr. Thorpe: Yes, of course, Mr. Speaker.

Mrs. Thatcher: If I may answer a question for once—which the Prime Minister

frequently invites me to do—will he try three weeks on Thursday? We shall be ready.

The Prime Minister: I am glad that the right hon. Lady has said that for once she will answer a question from me. It is the first time that it has happened in 12 months. We have been asking what expenditure cuts the Opposition would make. The right hon. Lady's whole case depends on the votes of last week.
My right hon. Friend who succeeds me will have the responsibility—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who?".] For a long time we have had the practice of democratic elections, not the scatty system which the Conservative Party introduced, but for which the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) would have been Leader of the Conservative Party.

Mr. Thorpe: May I continue on this happy note of inter-party unity? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are less interested in whether he has received the Interim Report on the Press than we are about his activities, which will be reported in the Press tomorrow?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that every Prime Minister who is worth his salt generates controversy? The right hon. Gentleman has been no exception—I am sure that he would not wish to be so. No doubt there will be occasions when evaluations will be made, but this is not the occasion on which to make them. Is the Prime Minister aware that hon. Members in all parts of the House are delighted that he has decided to stay as a parliamentary colleague of those of us who sit in the House? We shall be interested to see where he will sit and who his neighbours will be. Is he aware that it is a very good thing for party leaders to have their predecessors alongside them, so that they may be present to impart valuable advice from time to time?

Finally, may I say—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a special occasion.

Mr. Thorpe: Finally, may I say to the right hon. Gentleman that the one quality which he will now have in great abundance is the leisure to enjoy more time with his wife, his children and his grandchildren? We wish him well and wish him a long life.

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for drawing the attention of the House to the fact that the Question is about the Interim Report of the Royal Commission on the Press. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his generous words. I note what he said about it being desirable for a party leader to have his predecessors beside him. I can certainly say that in the case of this party my successor will have his predecessor not only beside him but behind him.

Mr. Atkinson: When choosing his seat will my right hon. Friend take into account that he is an ex-chairman of the predecessor of the Tribune Group? Does he not think it significant that the Leader of the Opposition offers him warm good wishes while ostentatiously not doing so to her own predecessor, the Conservative ex-Prime Minister?
As regards the Press, does my right hon. Friend recollect that his Cabinet colleagues were extremely critical of the Daily Telegraph offering the Tribune Group space to put its case when he himself included its political correspondent in this year's Honours List?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has raised many questions. It is true that together with some distinguished right hon. and hon. Friends, such as Aneurin Bevan and John Freeman, I was chairman of a group that did not then call itself the Tribune Group. My hon. Friend will be delighted to know that when the then Shadow Cabinet asked us to cease meeting we had one meeting to decide to cease meeting. I do not think that he has had such a request yet, but it is an idea. There is a very marked difference between the philosophy of the group of which I was chairman and some of the philosophies we have heard—but I do not want to be churlish on such an occasion as this.
As regards the Royal Commission on the Press, and the Daily Telegraph, I do not believe that what a newspaper prints or does, or refuses to do, has anything to do with the Honours List. It is the duty of the Prime Minister to propose those who have served this country in one way or another. In this case I was concerned with one of the most distinguished journalists to have served this

country. I have not agreed with everything he has written—nor has anyone else—but he is one of the most distinguished journalists to have served Britain as a doyen of the Lobby, to have served the House.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept the best wishes of my hon. Friends and myself without qualification? I point out that unlike the Leader of the Conservative Party and possibly the Leader of the Liberal Party, my party would welcome an election right away. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to draw the attention of his successor to the necessity of an urgent Scottish Government Bill before my hon. Friends and myself are saddled with the task of directing the pattern of Government in England as well as Scotland.

The Prime Minister: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his very kind words. Of course, I know that his party would welcome an election. I am not in the slightest degree surprised that it would like one as quickly as possible, so that it could start to win votes before telling Scotland the real meaning of what it is advocating.

Mr. Powell: Is the Prime Minister aware that following the disastrous policies towards Northern Ireland which were perpetrated by the previous Administration, the representatives and people of Northern Ireland will look forward to a period of greater stability and peace under the policies which he has inaugurated?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who on occasions such as this always speaks what is in his mind. I am grateful to him for what I think he meant as a compliment—[Interruption.] Well, I know that he meant it as a compliment.
I want to make it absolutely clear that I welcome the support given by the whole House to what my right hon. Friend announced last week on Northern Ireland but I do not want there to be any doubt that when in opposition we fully supported the policy of the Conservative Government. We thought then, and think now, that they were right to pursue that policy. That is why we gave them our support.
We are glad to feel that there is still no danger of the terrible problem of Northern Ireland becoming a matter between the two Front Benches. I support


what was done by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border and the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), when he was Prime Minister. I thank the right hon Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) for what he said about our present policy, but I want no misunderstanding about the past.

Mr. Heath: As the Prime Minister and I faced each other across the Table for 10 years of our leadership of our respective parties, may I say that any man who has been able to lead his party as skilfully as he has for 13 years and been Prime Minister for eight years, having won four General Elections, deserves the fullest tributes for his achievements during that time? May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the courtesies that he always extended to me when I was Leader of the Opposition and for the way that he responded to my invitations during the time that I was Prime Minister? May I congratulate him, after his retirement from office, on joining the party which is the only one to have doubled in numbers in the course of a year?

The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the generosity of what he has said. It is characteristic of him. As for what he said about my relations with him, I should like to reciprocate. When he was Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition, and since that time, we have always enjoyed very courteous relations and tried to help each other.
I query the last part of his question, about the doubling of the party. In fact, I think that there are already four previous Prime Ministers—the right hon. Gentleman, together with Lord Eden, Mr. Macmillan and Lord Home of the Hirsel——

Mr. Heath: I meant in this House.

The Prime Minister: I know, but there are parties outside the House as well, now. The right hon. Gentleman has received from me the tie of what The Times called the most distinguished club in England, which I am now about to join. I refer, of course, to the Chequers tie which is given to all those who have been there. It is always a matter for consideration how long—perhaps 13 years—the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) may have to wait to get one of those ties.

Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in deciding to relinquish his post as Prime Minister and the leadership of our party he will most justifiably and honourably have the good wishes not only of the Parliamentary Labour Party but of all the ordinary folk in the great Labour movement outside this House? One feature which distinguishes it is that it was his decision to relinquish his office and the leadership of the party. He goes without any knives in his back. [Interruption.]

The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend. Of course, that is true. We have our different ways in the different parties. I have always found the knives of the Conservative Party, as I have watched events over 30 years, less kindly and more lethally planted—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Opposition Members have not begun to study these matters. They will have many years in opposition in which to do so.
I thank my hon. Friend especially for his reference to the party and the country. Although I intend to go on answering questions, as I always do, with complete candour—I have answered 12,000—until my successor is appointed, I have made it clear that, despite certain suggestions, my decision was not a sudden one. I intimated it to you, Mr. Speaker, many months ago.

Mr. Speaker: That is correct.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEW MEMBERS

The following Members took and subscribed the oath:

David James Fletcher Hunt, Esq., MBE, for Wirral.

Francis Nigel Forman Esq., for Car shalton.

Oral Answers to Questions — STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the draft Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 (Commencement No. 4) Order 1976 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Commonwealth Development Corporation (Extension of Limits on Borrowing and Advances) Order 1976 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Edward Short.]

Oral Answers to Questions — REGIONAL AFFAIRS

Ordered,
That the matter of Greater London be referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs.—[Mr. Edward Short.]

TRANSPORT (AMENDMENT)

3.36 p.m.

Mr. Richard Luce: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to the licensing of public service vehicles.
I had not anticipated such an enormously packed House to hear the start of my speech, not such a rapid exodus the moment that I got under way—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members leave the Chamber quietly, to enable the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce) to present his Bill?

Mr. Luce: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker.
The purpose of this Bill is to improve transport services specifically in rural areas. Over the past few years rural transport has become a growing problem. In these areas, the number of services is being reduced, fares are escalating, many routes are becoming more unprofitable, and there are increasing requests from the bus companies for higher subsidies in the form of taxpayers' and ratepayers' money. For example, West Sussex County Council's estimated expenditure for public transport will increase from £317,000 in 1975–76 to £607,000 in 1976–77.
The end result of all this is a growing social problem. People in villages are becoming increasingly isolated and very often find it difficult to visit their doctor, a hospital, a community centre or a neighbouring town for shopping purposes.
Many people, especially the elderly and disabled, who cannot afford a car or cannot drive, very often find public transport services non-existent or at least inadequate for their needs. Moreover, many parents living within the three-mile limit have considerable difficulty in getting their children to school.
Since the problem is getting rapidly worse, I believe that urgent action is required. This Bill is designed to amend the existing law on the licensing of public service vehicles in order to ensure that all the transport needs of people living in rural areas are adequately met. In many respects this Bill is building on the admirable proposals contained in the 1974 Road Transport Bill introduced by my

right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton).
I must make one point absolutely clear. This Bill is intended to supplement and complement the routes operated by the National Bus Company. Its purpose is to fill in the many existing gaps in the services without in any way affecting the operations of the National Bus Company. Indeed, by enhancing the feeder services to main bus routes, it could even increase the number of passengers using existing services. The question of the future of the National Bus Company is therefore a separate issue and was most ably dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) when he asked leave to introduce his Transport (Amendment) Bill a fortnight ago.
I will outline briefly the main proposals contained in this Bill which I seek leave to introduce.
First, I propose to exempt all private cars carrying fewer than nine passengers from the licensing system. This will enable drivers to give lifts in return for contributions towards running costs. Such operations as the "Social Car Scheme" can therefore be expanded with passengers making a financial contribution rather than just relying on subventions from local authorities. Of course, the position of taxi drivers will have to be taken fully into account. Such relaxations in the law were made temporarily under the Emergency Regulations recently and there appeared to be no major obstacles.
One point needs to be stressed here about insurance for private car owners. In July 1975 the British Insurance Association and Lloyds Motor Underwriters Association jointly announced that contributions by passengers towards the cost of petrol will not be considered to infringe the "hiring" exclusion clause of normal private car policies, although contributions to costs other than petrol would require insurance under the "use for hire" category.
Secondly, I propose to amend the licensing laws—more specifically Section 30 of the Transport Act 1968 and Section 118 of the Road Traffic Act 1960—so that minibuses seating fewer than 16 passengers can be more widely operated. Under Section 203 of the 1972 Local


Government Act, county councils have the responsibility for co-ordinating transport services whilst the Traffic Commissioners, under separate legislation, operate the licensing system. My Bill will enable county councils to sanction the operation of minibuses under the relaxed licensing laws incorporating criteria laid down about safety, the size of vehicles and the need for routes to be complementary to the National Bus Company network.
Thirdly, I propose a further amendment to Section 118 of the Road Traffic Act 1960 to provide exemption from the normal licensing regulations, subject to certain safeguards, to established voluntary organisations, youth clubs, education authorities and other charitable bodies which wish to charge for their transport costs. Under the present regulations, the provision of minibuses for such purposes comes under the cumbersome licensing regulations for the purposes of "hire and reward". This amendment should help many voluntary organisations in rural areas and especially those bodies which have purchased minibuses to transport handicapped and elderly people.
This Bill is designed to fulfil an urgent social need in rural areas. For this reason, my hon. Friends and I hope that it will command the support of the whole House, for action is urgently needed.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Richard Luce, Mr. Ian Gow, Mr. Stephen Ross, Mr. John MacGregor, Mr. Robert Banks, Mr. Jerry Wiggin, Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson, Mr. Peter Fry and Mr. John Cope.

TRANSPORT (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Richard Luce accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law relating to the licensing of public service vehicles: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 21st May and to be printed. [Bill 95.]

Orders of the Day — PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSE (BROADCASTING)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [8th March],

That this House supports the proposal that the public sound broadcasting of its proceedings should be arranged on a permanent basis.—[Mr. Edward Short.]

Question again proposed.

3.43 p.m.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: I intend to speak for a very short time this afternoon.
I support the motion that we should broadcast the proceedings of this House. I do so for two reasons. The first is that many people have written to me expressing their great interest in the proceedings of this House and in listening to them over the radio. They have all said that they hope we shall continue to do that on a permanent basis.
The second and even greater reason is that, if our proceedings are broadcast, hon. Members will be forced to behave themselves.

3.44 p.m.

Mr. John Stokes: I have always been opposed to our proceedings being broadcast, despite the favourable interest which the experiment showed among the general public, because I fear that this new element will fundamentally alter the character of this place. It will change this Chamber, with the cut and thrust and the intimacies of debate among colleagues known to each other, to a sort of public hustings with the whole of the United Kingdom as audience. It will also make the House of Commons part of the huge and growing news and entertainment industry, and I purposely and regretfully bracket the two together.
However, before developing these arguments further, I wish to deal with a new factor in the dissemination of news—namely, the threat of the closed shop in journalism to what is printed in the newspapers. If this threat becomes as bad as some people fear and if there is control of what a newspaper may print, particularly regarding the proceedings in this House—that is a real fear among all


sections of the public—then indeed broadcasting of our deliberations will be the only way in which the general public will know what is going on here.
For the time being, and before we see the final form of this lamentable Bill, I am prepared—at least temporarily—to give the Government and even the National Union of Journalists the benefit of the doubt. Therefore, I turn away from that argument as from some horrible nightmare.
To return to my main argument, I believe that broadcasting would change the character of this place, subtly no doubt at first, but fundamentally after the course of time. The summaries, which would be made by editors who might or might not be known, would be bound inevitably to include the scenes, the rows, the dramatic events, and so on, such as we have seen in part this afternoon, whether those events were important or not. I fear that solid work would tend to go unnoticed, including presumably much of the important Committee work which goes on outside this Chamber.
I also fear that the value of our colleagues might be judged by how often they opened their mouths here instead of how much they actually influenced people and events. In this place we all judge each other not only by how fluent we are in the Chamber but by the kind of people we are, by our general character, and by our love of this country.
This Chamber is not the only place of importance in the Palace of Westminster. There are other areas, such as the Smoking Room, but heaven forbid that the talk there should be broadcast to the world!
We know that some of our colleagues have a weakness for publicity. I suppose that is a temptation, particularly for Back Benchers who do not get in the news unless they say something outrageous or appalling. I fear that broadcasting our proceedings will give rein to the more histrionic tendencies of some of our colleagues whom in other respects we dearly love. Speeches would be made not to the other side, or even to the Gallery, of which we are officially unaware, but to an unseen audience of 55 million people. No one can say that this would not be a sudden and violent change from

the cut and thrust of debate, which, except for the short experiment, we have always had.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I am in general sympathy with the tenor of the hon. Member's argument but would he not think it possible that such exhibitionists would be on the receiving end when the general public saw the way in which they behaved here?

Mr. Stokes: That may be so. I only fear that we might be judged more as actors or film stars than as parliamentarians. In the end, it is not just what we say here that matters but what we do, particularly if Back Benchers are translated to the Front Bench, where doing is at least as important as talking.
I fear also that the parliamentary timetable would be under great pressure to conform to the deadlines of the editors and summarisers and the whole of the news industry, which is becoming a branch of show business. For instance, debates after ten o'clock would probably be even worse reported than they are now. Before we knew where we were we should be thinking of our audience ratings rather than our all-round performance, including our work outside the House. The House is already grossly overworked. It should sit less and pass fewer laws. We should spend more time listening to the views of our constituents.
There is already in this once great but now, regrettably, declining country far too much talking, news and comment about current affairs. As a nation we are almost feverish, always taking our own temperature. We are becoming almost unknown to our great predecessors whose faces look down upon us with pride but, I fear, also with some contempt after the great confidence that they used to have in our nation. If words could cure our ills, we should be well out of our problems, but in this place, as in this life, it is deeds, not words, that count.
To broadcast our proceedings would only add to the general babble. Let us have the courage to tell the media, those self-important judges of so many things, not to bring their impedimenta here. We should prove by our actions that we are more than a protracted "Any Questions" session.

3.54 p.m.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: I do not want to follow in detail the arguments of the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes). Although I have seen no statistics, the broadcasting experiment appeared to increase the interest shown by hon. Members at Questime Time. I am sure that the number of Questions tabled has increased and I accept that this may have led to a change in the character of the Chamber at Question Time.
I can understand the concern about the Chamber becoming a stage for performers and actors, but we have a similar situation already. The impact of Back Benchers on policy is limited and Question Time is an occasion when they can try to get assurances and indications of political direction from the Government.
Many hon. Members are influenced by the Press. The power of the Press here is far beyond what many people would accept. Many hon. Members can be influenced not by an issue itself but by the Press response to it. That is tragic, but it will continue in an assembly such as this. There is not much that one can do about those who raise subjects for personal publicity, thereby taking the place of more serious questions. In the final analysis, one has to decide what this place means to people outside.
There has been mixed comment about the technical side of the experiment and its value to the public. It seemed to me that the number of reactions accorded with the number of people with whom one discussed it. The only consistent view was that the experiment enabled people to understand our proceedings better.
We have been arguing for more open government, for the House and other institutions to be exposed, warts and all, to the public. That is probably the most important argument, beside which all others are nothing. Whatever technical difficulties there may be—no doubt the broadcasting authorities could make improvements—the experiment brought a better understanding of our proceedings. A perfectly cogent debate can sometimes be a gabble for the listener. This step is the correct one because it brings the public into our institutions. Handled properly, this informative, if not educational, process, with all its imperfections,

should continue. As Members of this House we should do all we can to admit the public and to move towards a situation in which Parliament in some respects becomes closer to them.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Neil Macfarlane: Much of what I wish to say has already been said by hon. Members. However, I hope that the Minister will clarify and develop certain points made in the recommendations of the Select Committee.
First, I am concerned that the experiment last summer was not long enough and not correctly simulated. On page viii of its Report, the Select Committee says:
A small area 10' X 12' would meet the first requirement. In order to meet the second the broadcasting authorities have asked for a commentary box at least twice as large as the one used during the experiment.
I understand that space for that commentary box can be found only beyond the Bar of the House. Already there are the beginnings of a slight squeeze between the facilities that obtained during the experiment and what is being recommended to the House. Perhaps the Minister will comment on this situation.
Many of us, although not against the principle of broadcasting the proceedings of the House, are concerned about the experiment and what might transpire once the media make their presence felt in this Chamber. I am concerned that over the next few years we shall start a series of protracted erosions.
The Report goes on to say that
the IBA …have asked for only 400 sq. ft. but the BBC
would require 2,000 square feet. I do not pretend to know why the BBC requires more, but perhaps the Minister will tell us. The BBC will take up space in Bridge Street or in Norman Shaw South which hon. Members would require. I am a relatively new Member of this illustrious gathering, but I have always been told that we are short of space. We are now likely to be deprived of even more space over the next year or so.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Privy Council Office (Mr. William Price): Would it not be a pity if this House came to the view that the only reason for not broadcasting the proceedings, assuming


that we want to do so, was that we did not have the space to offer the authorities? Would that not be a sad situation?

Mr. Macfarlane: It probably would. However, it is not the most important priority which this House should consider. I cannot understand why the broadcasting authorities cannot seek accommodation elsewhere, outside this Chamber. I am concerned that we are already being taken over by the media.
I dismiss televising our proceedings because we have only to look around the Chamber to realise the impracticability of such a scheme.
The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) mentioned the amount of timing. He said, referring to the Report, that Government Ministers were allotted 42 per cent. of the time and Labour Back Benchers 17 per cent. By my reckoning that is better than 60 per cent. for the Labour movement. I cannot help but feel that in the fullness of time when the Labour Party is in Opposition it will be the first to bay if the Conservatives are allocated that amount of time compared with the 28 per cent. which we receive at present. That must be investigated.
Finally, I am concerned that we shall merely broadcast the debates in the Chamber and Question Time. We shall do ourselves a disservice if we do not come up with a firm scheme for taping or broadcasting the Committees. Both Select and Standing Committees are an integral part of the House of Commons. I see that the Chairman of the Broadcasting Sub-Committee is in his place. I appreciate the immense amount of work that the Committees do, but when I read the Report and the statements by Mr. Brewin and Mr. Dring I was concerned that we had not gone into this matter in sufficient detail. I hope that the Minister will refer to this. In view of the Select Committee's Report, I shall not support the motion before the House because I do not believe that we shall have an accurate reflection of the proceedings of Parliament. Select and Standing Committees play a vital part in our proceedings, far more important than some of the knockabout exchanges that take place between 2.30 and 3.30 most afternoons.

4.5 p.m.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I welcome this opportunity to pursue this debate and hope that the motion before the House will be accepted. However, I have one or two reservations which I want to make.
Those who finance this place should be able to take advantage of all the communication media available. I should like to see the proceedings televised. However, that is not in issue here, but it emphasises my view that modern electronic means of communication about what happens in Parliament should be used to communicate the information to those outside.
Paragraph 52 of the Memorandum submitted by the BBC to the the Sub-Committee says that, according to BBC research, people felt that they were being better informed about issues before Parliament. Hon. Members should not cavil at the fact that those who sent us here are receiving more information through important media. I hope that Parliament will approve this Report.
The dissemination of information outside will change Parliament for the better. It is not such a marvellous institution that it cannot be improved. No human institution is that good. Only last night there were four people on their feet simultaneously—they all had several years' experience—because they were not sure about the proper procedure. It is also worth bearing in mind that Parliament evolves continuously and than new procedures are continuously being developed. If they are being developed with the knowledge that they must be interpreted outside, surely that will make them clearer to us inside. It is not true that every one of the 635 Members of this House understands what goes on all the time. Some of us have a better understanding than others because we attend more diligently. Nevertheless, there are areas where proceedings can be clarified, and if sound broadcasting helps in this evolutionary process, so much the better.
Sound broadcasting will also improve attendance. No one could say that Mondays find the walls bulging with people. Sometimes the attendance is rather thin. However, on the first Monday of sound broadcasting there are many unfamiliar faces. People felt that they had better be here because the eagle eye of those


outside was on them. In my opinion that is not a bad thing. If publicity and exposure of what is happening inside this House makes people more enthusiastic for regular attendance, so much the better.
I think that this would be an excellent step towards full-time paid membership of the House of Commons. I know that many people regard that suggestion as shocking and that they ought to be able to take a dozen or so directorships and a few parliamentary adviserships and to call in here when they feel that to be convenient. I do not take that view. I think that we are paid sufficiently to keep body and soul together to be here to carry out the job that people sent us to do. Therefore, one of the factors in sound broadcasting is that there should be a tendency for Members to come here more often. That is an excellent thing.

Mr. Macfarlane: Following that argument through, on that basis the hon. Gentleman presumably wants 635 Members to be here all day and every day, and including throughout Question Time. Is he not aware that the Chamber is capable of holding only about 450 Members?

Mr. Cryer: If 635 attended Question Time, that would make it much more difficult for Members. As a regular questioner, I would not be all that enthusiastic about that. However, in the practical nature of things, it would not be that number. Members would be on Committees, delegations and so on.
I am not criticising those who engage in proper parliamentary business. I do not embrace them in my remarks about directorships and parliamentary adviser-ships. There is a distinction between people doing parliamentary work, not necessarily in the Chamber, and people lining their pockets by going to board rooms in the City and picking up a few thousand pounds for giving advice or something.
If there were a regular attendance of about 600 Members we might have to consider having about 600 seats. I realise that this is pretty revolutionary stuff and that the notion that we should have a Chamber in which there were regularly more than 20 or 30 Members is rather heady. However, at least it would be a nice thing to talk about. It would be nice to discuss the problems of over-

active participation in Parliament. If that is the result of sound broadcasting—though, alas. I fear it will not be—we can come to it. Certainly it is something that I would welcome.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman in regard to Committees because much Committee work goes on in this place. Some Committees are extraordinarily dull, such as the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, of which I am a member. Members perform their Committee duties not because a degree of glamour is attached to those duties but as a matter of public duty. Committees are sitting almost the whole time. On Tuesday mornings and Thursdays mornings the Standing Committees meet, and on controversial Bills they meet for many hours longer than that.
The hon. Gentleman was quite right to emphasise the importance of Committees. Certainly if we were discussing television, for example, one of the caveats that I would enter would be that there would have to be some way of recognising the fact that these Committees existed and that Members were working in them. Indeed, paragraph 37 of the Report of the Services Committee concerned me a little. It says,
The technical quality of the output from the committee rooms, however, was poor, due to acoustic problems and inadequate microphone coverage. It was not really satisfactory for broadcasting.
I am sure that the Select Committee did not simply rest on that matter, because it was referred to later. However, in my view there ought to be broadcasting of important Committees as well.
I do not share the view put forward by the Shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), that American experience of television coverage, of itself, weakened American government. I thought that it enormously strengthened American government. Bearing in mind the results of the Americans' experience over Vietnam and the fact that coverage of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Congress exposed a great deal of what was going on and was able to inform the American public to a much greater degree, I think that that was a strengthening of government. If people get information from a Parliament, or whatever one calls it, and take up a particular


attitude as a result of that information and bring pressure to bear on the legislature, that seems to be an entirely proper way of democratic working.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Is not my hon. Friend confusing two issues here? Is he not saying that it would be a very good thing to have broadcasting coverage of Select Committees—which in my view would be a very good thing— as opposed to broadcasting coverage of the Chamber in general, where an entirely different state of affairs would apply?

Mr. Cryer: No. I want coverage of both, and I am prepared to have continuous coverage of the Chamber, with the proceedings edited according to the wishes of the broadcasting staffs. I do not believe that they are part of a Machiavellian conspiracy, ready to present totally biased views so that an unfair position is represented. By and large, bias is when one oneself does not have one's nugget of information, one's question or one's speech incorporated. I am prepared to allow them to make that selection. Furthermore, I am prepared to allow them to make the selection of the Select Committees and Standing Committees which they feel to be the most important. Their judgment may not be mine, but I cannot impose a judgment on these people and would not seek to do so.
We already have a Press which I do not favour, and which is largely in the hands of people who are opposed to the Labour movement and the trade union movement, and which adopts an entirely scurrilous attitude on many occasions and which frequently is unfair and biased. I could give examples of this, but I shall not bore the House. However, we on the Labour Benches frequently face this problem. As yet, the Press is not covered by a charter. Both the BBC and the independent broadcasting organisations are covered by a statutory body. One of their commitments is to produce fair, balanced broadcasts. I should have thought that if there were any reservations or doubts about the broadcasting of these proceedings based on the experience already gleaned from the Press—and I admit that from the Labour side it is a very unhappy experience—the fact that these bodies have some statutory coverage should

assuage those doubts. I should have thought that the experience of the experiment was such that one could be led to the conclusion that it was a very successful experiment and that there were no deliberate attempts at bias. One must leave judgment to others to some degree.

Mr. John Moore: I take that point entirely, but is there not an essential difference in regard to the Press that there is the textual copy of Hansard as the ultimate comparison? This would not exist unless there was total broadcasting with the edited version as well. That is what we shall lack if we support the motion.

Mr. Cryer: There is a difficult comparison between the spoken word and the written word. However, I should have thought that a Member was less likely to be misrepresented as his actual words were being transmitted and, therefore, his golden nuggets of information.

Mr. Moore: Edited.

Mr. Cryer: One cannot edit out the words completely. There would be some of the spoken word. Obviously there are possibilities. We saw recently, for example, in a disgraceful programme by Lord Chalfont, the potential for bias about the Labour movement in Britain, and clearly there are these potentialities. However, at the same time, I am prepared, even with the background of Chalfont's programme—which, by and large, was not thought of very highly, except by avid readers of newspapers such as the Daily Telegraph—to leave some degree of judgment to the editors of the BBC and the independent broadcasting organisations. I cannot guarantee the results.
All that the House of Commons can do is to pass a resolution which says to these people "Here are some criteria which we are laying down. We hope that you will adhere to these criteria. If you do not, there is machinery for complaints, whereby those criteria can be enforced." That is all that we can do. If we can get the information outside through sound broadcasting within those criteria, at least I think that we should start on the attempt.

Mr. Victor Goodhew: The hon. Gentleman says that he cannot guarantee the results. I can guarantee


the results for him. There are some Members who will be thought to be very active in this place and some thought not to be active, accordingly to their good or bad fortune whether they are selected to speak. In the recent experiment we had three categories of Member in "Yesterday in Parliament". First, there were the Members of whom the BBC said "Mr. So-and-so said this, that and the other, and then went on to say"—and we then had a clip of the recording of his voice. There were the second-class chaps of whom the BBC said, "Mr. So-and-so said this, that and the other"—with no clip of the voice of the Member. Then there were the third-class citizens, of whom no mention was made even though they had spoken in the House. In Hansard we are all equal, but the moment someone edits, we are not.

Mr. Cryer: As a matter of interest, I looked through the indices of Hansard for previous years and examined the speeches of hon. Members for Keighley. I found their contributions not as pleasurable as those made by other hon. Members.
I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) say that he thought that all hon. Members should be equal. I do not see how we can expect to bring 635 hon. Members together and then expect them to make the same contributions or contributions of equal quality. The hon. Gentleman is saying that all hon. Members should be given equality of treatment so as to result in an equality of distribution. But any hon. Member who tables 50 oral Questions is likely over a period of time to figure more often in "Today in Parliament" than if he were to table no Questions at all. It is right that broadcasts should accurately reflect the fact that some hon. Members are more active than others.

Mr. William Price: For once I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer). During the experiment 350 hon. Members figured in the broadcasts—many more hon. Members than are ever reported under the present system in which BBC producers make their own choice. This means that the vast majority of us have never appeared in those programmes and never will.

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, with whom I frequently agree. I understand that the BBC has become so alarmed at the lack of Conservative contributors to such programmes as "Week in Westminster" that they are worried about balance. This illustrates the point made by the Minister, and it means that those experimental broadcasts were fairer because there was a greater degree of balance because people figured in the broadcasts who would not normally do so.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Surely the fact that the BBC is short of Conservative contributors is the fault of the BBC. It is up to the BBC to invite us to appear on its programmes.

Mr. Cryer: That is not necessarily the case. It may be that Labour Members are more active. There are fewer company directors among Labour Members and, consequently, we do not attend as many board meetings as do Opposition Members, nor do we hold as many posts in an advisory or consultative capacity. We have only to look at the Register of Interests to appreciate that point.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Because of activities indulged in by Opposition Members outside the House, it means that there are 100 fewer Opposition Members on which the BBC can draw for a programme such as "Week in Westminster". In other words, many Opposition Members are not often present in the House.

Mr. A. P. Costain: Where are all the Labour Members now?

Mr. Cryer: Many of my hon. Friends are taking part in Committee work.
I hope that hon. Members will overcome their fears and will enable people outside the House—and they, after all, are the people who pay to send us to this place—to see what is going on in Parliament. If Parliament is the subject of criticism, we should be given the opportunity to remedy the situation by saying to our constituents "This is what is taking place and these are the matters which are being debated." We must get away from the exclusive, club-like atmosphere which this House engenders. The


building already tends to intimidate visitors, and if we do not let people see what is going on here, they will tend to push us further away. We want a Parliament which is representative of the people outside, which takes account of their views, and which debates matters of relevance to them. However, if we take the view "We must not allow electronic machinery into Parliament because it has never been done", people, will say "You are too remote and isolated from the people."

Mr. Goodhew: The hon. Gentleman should not seek to suggest that in my anxieties about the way in which programmes are edited I am not in favour of happenings in the House being put before the people. It would suit me very well if there were to be a permanent programme so that people had the right to decide whether to listen to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) or to me. But that is not what we are now being offered.

Mr. Cryer: We should give the Joint Committee, which no doubt will be set up following this debate, the opportunity to produce some kind of broadcasting unit in the House. We cannot guarantee complete and total accuracy unless we have such a system, and I would not object to it. However, as a start, let us give the opportunity to the BBC and to others to make recordings and also to broadcast live. We all remember in the experimental period that statements of great public importance went out live from the House and brought an immediacy to the situation.
I accept that it would be a good thing to have a separate wavelength for full-time broadcasts of proceedings in the House, with perhaps certain broadcasts directly from Committees. I should not object to that, but I should also like to give an opportunity for extracts to be made from our proceedings.
I am not too keen on setting up a Joint Committee of both Houses. I have strong reservations about the other House. I do not want to give the House of Lords too strong a sense of its own importance. No less a person than Lord Goodman has complained about non-elected bodies being in positions of power. I do not think the House of Commons should ignore Lord Goodman's axiom. I hope that in
the not-too-distant future my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will take a long cool look at the question of what to do about the House of Lords. It would surely be wrong now to involve the other place in a Joint Committee on this subject which would give it too great a sense of its own importance. Hopefully, it will shortly become redundant and will have no place on such a Committee in any event.
I am sorry that I have taken so long in my remarks, but I have had to deal with a number of interventions. I very much hope that the motion will be endorsed and that the House will give an opportunity to people outside to know more about what goes on inside this place.

4.28 p.m.

Sir Paul Bryan: I wish to declare my interest as a director of Granada Television and also of Greater Manchester Independent Radio Limited.
I think that I have taken part in every debate on this subject in the last 15 years. Indeed I was speaking from the Opposition Front Bench on the dramatic occasion in 1966 when the proposal for a television experiment was defeated by only one vote.
Today's debate is quite unlike any of its predecessors. For the first time our opinions and assertions can be based on something fairly solid—namely, the first and only experiment of the broadcasting of our proceedings to the public.
In earlier debates we aired our prejudices year after year. They did not seem to change very much. We squeezed what evidence we could out of closed circuit experiments of television in another place and out of the radio experiments in closed circuit here. Those broadcasts were unheard and unseen by the public or indeed by many hon. Members. At last today we can pass judgment on the real thing—or at least a taste of the real thing.
This was a genuine experiment in that its form can be reproduced exactly and continued as a permanent institution. Proof of its good reception by the public was shown by the fact that the audience for "Today in Parliament" increased by about 25 per cent., despite the programme being double in length. Right hon. and hon. Members will show tonight whether


they are as satisfied as the public with the experiment when they come to vote.
Personally I think that as Members we have very little cause for complaint. I happened to be driving down the M1 motorway on the first day of the experiment and I heard the first two hours in toto. It sounded exactly as we are, for better or for worse, but it did seem longer than it does when we are sitting in the Chamber.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane) and other hon. Members have complained that the Opposition have a shorter innings in such programmes than the Government and its supporters. During the experiment 60 per cent. of the time went to Government and 40 per cent. to the Opposition. While I deplore that situation while in Opposition, I do not blame the editor. For the first time we have statistically recorded the bald truth that the Government of the day, however bad they may be, are more newsworthy than the Opposition. If one analyses any period of television or any newspaper one will find the same proportions. That is what we have to live with, as the present Government will discover when they go into Opposition.
Back Benchers may find comfort in the liberal use of recordings of their speeches by the local radio stations. Ian Trethowan says in the BBC's Memorandum:
The service to BBC local radio was unquestionably one of the most successful aspects of the experiment, and was appreciated by listeners in the local areas. 160 tailor-made reports—many containing several extracts of actuality—were distributed, and by the end of the month, every one of the 20 local stations had broadcast something from Parliament.
IRN also gives a detailed log and diary showing the many Members who were reported in local programmes.
This is an area of parliamentary broadcasting which will develop over the coming years. I do not know whether the BBC will be allowed, or financially be able, to set up new local radio stations. That will depend on their finances. But, from my experience in independent local radio I think there is no doubt now that they will proliferate. Local stations can be viable, even when small, provided they are not overstaffed. It is interesting that smaller stations covering smallish towns have a higher listening percentage than

those covering wider areas, because local feeling exists.
In earlier debates there has been speculation on exactly how Parliament would be reported over the air. In the BBC Memorandum Ian Trethowan says:
I think that what we learned during the experiment is that the amount of material from the House that can be carried live is fairly limited. Question Time, for obvious reasons is very difficult, because Questions are not read. With regard to the actual debates, there are occasions when you want to carry the whole debate, but they are comparatively rare.
It was also learned that limitations on the amount of material that can be broadcast live is not a great disadvantage. It means that you need skilful commentators such as David Holmes and Ed Boyle to explain the scene, and also skilful editors. With the present broadcasting organisations we shall have this service in the future. Today's Question Time was an occasion which would undoubtedly have been broadcast live and it would have been interesting to the public.
During the experiment the most striking live broadcast was the one covering the statement by the Foreign Secretary about Mr. Hills and the House's reaction to it. The broadcast was not confined to this country but was also broadcast to the people of Uganda.

Mr. Douglas Crawford: And Scotland.

Sir P. Bryan: That is a long way to go.
I recommend the House to heed the advice of my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), who suggested that the broadcasting of the House should be developed slowly, step by step, and that we should not rush into recording Committees and Select Committees for some time to come. Having studied the Report, I suggest that the volume of parliamentary programmes broadcast in the experiment reached the limit of what the public will take. Even then it seemed to represent a small proportion of the doing of this Chamber. Once we include another place, which we are bound to do, this Chamber—which I consider to be the heart of Parliament—will be even less heard. If we keep on spreading the net to Committees of all sorts, the broadcasting of this Chamber will be reduced, perhaps to derisory amount.

Mr. Macfarlane: Does my hon. Friend have an iota of concern that if we merely confine broadcasting to this Chamber we shall not accurately reflect Parliament? To do that we must include Committees.

Sir P. Bryan: We should perhaps do that, but slowly. If we try to cover the whole of the other place and many of our Committees, people will ask "What is happening in the House of Commons?" Perhaps people may in time become increasingly keen on the programmes and willing to hear more. We could cover wider fields.

Mr. Crawford: Why do we have to take into consideration the other place at all? It is not all that important is it?

Sir P. Bryan: That is not a decision which is in my hands. I take the proposals as a package.
The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), who is not in the Chamber to contribute his usual knowledgeable speech, was less clear than usual in describing the rôle that he allotted to a parliamentary broadcasting unit. Neither he nor paragraph 4 of the Report of the Committee stated the exact rôle such a unit would play. If it is to be merely responsible for the technical operation, the preservation of the archives and so on, well and good. But if the unit were to have any say in choosing, for example, which Standing Committee was to be recorded and which we wanted the public to hear, we should be treading on dangerous ground.
One of the virtues of the so-called animal noises heard over the air by the public during the experiment was that they clearly showed that there was nothing phoney about the broadcasts, and that hon. Members had certainly not been in a position to prevent the public from hearing them as they are.

Mr. Ben Ford: I must make it clear that it is, and was, the intention of the Sub-Committee that Committees of the House should be broadcast. We devoted some space to that in our Report. We also discussed means by which the broadcasting authorities could indicate those Committees that they wished to broadcast. The matter would not be within the jurisdiction of the parliamentary broadcasting unit.

Sir P. Bryan: I am relieved to hear that because this quality of authenticity has acquired a new value in an age when Governments and politicians go to such lengths and to such expense to doctor news of their activities. All Government handouts now are suspect for this reason.
In debates 10 years ago on broadcasting the proceedings of the House fears were often expressed, as they have been expressed once or twice this afternoon, that television or sound broadcasting could alter the nature of this place. I believe that this apprehension seems less justified today, and in the debate we have had over these two days we have shown a good deal less concern about it.
Those of us who have been here for some years are not proud that we ourselves have failed to reform Parliament to face the modern age. I would like to quote an extract from an article, which appeared in February 1974, by Richard Crossman, a man devoted to the reform of this House:
For some years some of us tried to reform the Commons from inside and had some success in such things as specialist Committees. But what we were really trying to do was to restore the power of the Commons as a critic and check on an executive whose arrogance does not conceal its incompetence. There we failed, and our successors will fail like us until the public can see for themselves how Parliament has been shorn of all control of it and the legislative time-table, how it rarely decides anything and how the only parts of this loquacious old fraud which Whitehall now fears are the Public Accounts Committee, the Expenditure Committee and one or two of the new specialist Committees. Parliament needs televising because this will help to pull it out of its privileged twilight existence and expose it to the light of day.
Little has happened since Richard Crossman wrote those words which would have made him change that view.

4.42 p.m.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: I actually put in my first election address in February 1974 that I was in favour of broadcasting the proceedings of this House. Somehow it got lost in the October election address, due to other things; but certainly on a question of principle which we are asked to support again today, I fully support the broadcasting and televising of our proceedings and I make no bones about it. I see radio and sound broadcasting of the House as the thin end of the wedge for the future televising of the House; and


I make no bones about it. I desire that. I believe that it would be desirable.
In paragraph 1 of the Report it is pointed out that there is a contrast between the "unique character" of this place and the requirements of the people. That sums the situation up as far as I am concerned. The people must be put before the unique character of this House any day of the week. As my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) has said, this is a cosy place with a clubby atmosphere. I dare say when one has been here for a few years longer, age starts closing in on one and one becomes less amenable towards bringing about change.
I still look upon this place as a factory to which I come to work every day. To me, it is nothing more nor less. My constituents would certainly be shocked, which is a polite way of putting it, if they saw how we have to work. I am not speaking of the actual work but of the surroundings and the things they would not understand and would want made clear. This would be a good thing because we should then have to answer question on how Parliament works and how and why we are legislating on their behalf.
It has been argued that we should not be misled by the experiment. I must declare an interest, as a member of the Ed Boyle-David Holmes fan club, because I want them to broadcast again in the future, for they did a very good job. But we should not be led astray into believing that it will always be like the experiment. That was for a four-week period and a unique one, because of the situation with the Referendum and the Common Market. That period was slightly different from any other four-week period since I have been a Member of this place.
Certainly hon. Members with many outside interests may be a little put out, although they may be able to get in for Question Time—and probably they will flood the Order Paper with Questions. That is what happens. We have only to look at the number of Oral Questions on the average Order Paper. They may number 40, 50 or 60 in any one day. Looking back to those weeks when we had the experiment, we see that the number topped 100 fairly regularly. It

was obvious that hon. Members wanted to broadcast, to let their constituents know that they were here.
I hope, therefore, that broadcasting on a permanent basis would bring about some changes, possibly an extended Question Time, perhaps a change back to the older system under which the hon. Member asking a Question was allowed more than one supplementary question, because, by and large, Question Time is a farce. As a check on the Executive it is non-existent. If the older system were bronght back, that would make broadcasting easier and more understandable and might go some way towards reinforcing the check or control over the Executive which this place long ago lost.
The hon. Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) fairly made the point that the Government of the day will get the advantage, and long may that be so. He made the point that in the Press the ratio was about 60 to 40 per cent. in favour of the Government, but the difference here is that the Government do not like the Press. If the 60 per cent. refers to the present Government, at the moment that is not the same thing as saying that Ministers have a 60 per cent. advantage in putting across the Government's view. That is a different point altogether.
There was one member of the Government who came across differently and did not sound on radio at all as he is painted in the Press. This was said to me by people outside who had no particular interest in mentioning it. A "bogy man" image had been painted of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) during his tenure of office at the Department of Industry. Without doubt during those four weeks he was able to put across to the public at large outside that he was not the "bogy man" that he had been painted by the Press. My constituents remarked on that. To this extent, therefore, the misrepresentations of the Press can be countered. While the Government may get 60 per cent. of the Press in terms of column inches, that is not the same as getting 60 per cent. of the broadcast time.

Sir P. Bryan: The hon. Gentleman has quoted me as saying that it gave the Government an advantage. I said only that it just gave the Government more time.

Mr. Rooker: One assumes that for "time" one can read "advantage". I certainly think that it is an advantage, and we need not beat about the bush. Exposure is an advantage. It may well be that at certain times we could do without exposure, but by and large, the greater the exposure the greater the advantage.
The other place has been mentioned. I am unhappy about its proceedings being broadcast. They should be broadcast only when there exists a situation of conflict between this place and that place, whichever party may be in power, where the other place is seeking to delay what the Government may feel is important legislation. It should then be possible to make a decision in this place that when that particular legislation goes to another place, the proceedings are broadcast. In that way we shall be able to show the public the image of that other place, in all its rawness, because its only power is to delay, and it is very difficult to explain that to constituents. They say, "We elected you. You are the Government. Why is that other place a problem?" I would, therefore, make the exception that in those circumstances the proceedings in the other place should be broadcast.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: On a point of detail, is not the hon. Gentleman's description of another place too limited? Much good legislation is initiated there.

Mr. Rooker: That is true. Tomorrow morning in a Committee upstairs, where the proceedings would not be broadcast, I shall be piloting through the remaining stages in this House of a Private Member's Bill, a Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, to reform licensing matters, following a judgment of the Law Lords last year. That is a good example, but probably it is not one which would be worthy of broadcasting, because so much goes on in this House. There are eight or nine Standing Committees sitting at the moment and clearly it would be impossible, and probably not very desirable, for them all to be broadcast every day. The impression would be given in short programmes that many different things were happening at the same time and the public would find it difficult to understand how hon. Members could devote the necessary time to understand

the background and detail of all these matters. We must be very careful in our selection of Committees to be broadcast.
I agree that there is much worthwhile legislation which starts in the House of Lords, but it could also emanate from an elected second Chamber—which I would favour—or from a second Chamber of Life Peers. It does not have to come from a Chamber that membership of which depends, to a large extent, on whose bed one was born in.

Mr. Rathbone: Or by which trade union one is sponsored.

Mr. Rooker: I do not think unions are in a position to appoint Peers of the Realm. Perhaps, in order to find out, we shall have to await the next volume of the memoirs of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, which will probably not be far away following today's announcement.
I voted for both television and sound broadcasting, but the House decided on a radio experiment only. I did not, therefore, expect to see a still photograph of an hon. Member with a broadcast of his words on the television news.

Mr. Clement Freud: If the hon. Member had read the proceedings of the Select Committee, on which I served, he would have found that we recommended that the procedure to which he has referred should be allowed. Any amazement on his part was due simply to incompetence in not reading the relevant documents.

Mr. Rooker: I read the Report. We were in an experimental period and, as the House had voted for sound broadcasting only, what I saw on television appeared to be a misuse of the material. I changed my mind subsequently and I now think that television should be able to make use of broadcasts in this way. I disapproved when I first saw it on television because I had been in the Chamber at the time and did not think the broadcast gave a very good impression of what had happened.

Mr. Freud: Before the voices of hon. Members were used in news programmes, their words were spoken by somebody else over a still picture of the hon. Member. Surely the hon. Gentleman does not think it was better to have the words of an hon. Member from a Northern


constituency spoken as if he were a BBC announcer.

Mr. Rooker: I did not expect the event to which I referred to occur. On reflection, I approve of it.
However, I strongly disapprove of the use to which a broadcast was put as mentioned in paragraph 6 of the Report of the Select Committee. This was a total misuse of an extract. It was not in a news or current affairs programme but in a form of light entertainment. The Committee received a handsome apology, and we must hope that it does not happen again. But when the opportunity is presented, I shall seek to support the full televising of our proceedings.
We must pay careful attention to the Attorney-General's memorandum on matters of Privilege. Since I have been in the House, I have dared to raise a matter of Privilege only once. The result was a suggestion that we should ban the journalists involved from the House, which I was not happy about, imprison them, which we had not done for several years, or fine them, which we do not have the power to do. Hon. Members must be careful before raising questions of Privilege or of making use of the freedom to say what they wish without fear of subsequent legal action. This Privilege is not used very often.
Hon. Members may speak under the umbrella of absolute Privilege and can tear into people outside. Raising a matter in the House is often the only way of making it known. If spoken outside, the words might be subject to the laws of libel and defamation, but it would be a travesty if those transmitting a broadcasting signal could be held guilty of defamation. Anyone can purchase copies of Hansard at Her Majesty's Stationery Office and the people who sell it would not be guilty of defamation.
Those in charge of the broadcasting signal should not be barred or held back in the items they choose to broadcast from the House. It is important to take on board the Attorney-General's memorandum, which may require changes in the law of defamation to protect those who will transmit our proceedings to the nation.

4.57 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Grant: During the experimental broadcasts, not

a single word of wisdom fell from my lips upon the unsuspecting ears of the public and it is interesting that I did not receive a single complaint from constituents that I had not been heard. To some extent, I come to the problem with a fresh mind.
Unlike the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) and some of his hon. Friends below the Gangway opposite, I do not want to change for the sake of change. I like the traditions of this House. The last thing I want is for us to put more seats in the Chamber or to start mucking about with the building. The traditions of the House are immensely valuable and should be preserved. We cast them away at our peril.
I have consistently voted for experimental broadcasting of our proceedings. Because I love Parliament's traditions and believe in its importance, I think that it must be the premier forum for discussion and debate in this country if we are to remain a free society. The alternative is undesirable and positively dangerous. But if Parliament turns its back on modern means of communication, now or in the future, we shall slide further into the backwater of public affairs and lose even more relevance to the world outside in our discussions of public affairs.
Whether we like it or not, the public will continue to get information from television and radio. They will not start reading Hansard or buying The Times or the Daily Telegraph. In increasing numbers, they will use the most modern forms of communication. If we turn our backs on broadcasting, those people will rely not upon the debates and discussions among the people they elect and influence but upon the pundits in the BBC and the IBA, or worse, that horrible phrase "radio and television personalities". I exclude present company. The hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) combines both those attributes. He is a personality and a Member of Parliament. It would be undesirable for the reputation and effect of the House if the public increasingly were to hear the no doubt wise and learned pundits and personalities who are not elected and not responsible to the electorate.

Mr. Freud: Is the hon. Gentleman inferring that other hon. Members are not personalities. That seems to be a villainous suggestion.

Mr. Grant: I hope that we are all personalities, but perhaps not to such a great extent as is the hon. Gentleman. My main concern is that academics or employees of the media who are in no way responsible to the public should assume an ever-increasing importance in the means of communication, instead of the public being able to listen to the debates in the House.

Mr. F. A. Burden: Does not my hon. Friend agree that there are desirable and undesirable personalities in this place as there are everywhere else? Might it not be desirable for television and radio to help to sort out the desirable from the undesirable?

Mr. Grant: I agree with my hon. Friend that one effect of broadcasting would be to separate the sheep from the goats. I have expressed my belief in the traditions and customs of the House, but we should not delude ourselves that the mystique in which we sometimes wrap our affairs carries quite the same degree of reverence in the minds of the public as it perhaps did in the past. The traditions of the House do not now mean so much to the public as they did of yore. That is another reason why we should meet the public on present-day terms and let them see and hear what goes on in this place.
I am not quite so enthusiastic as is my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) about the experiment, or so satisfied with it. It left a great deal to be desired. Like him, I listened to it mainly on my car radio. I am not convinced that it gave a true picture. Too much attention was paid to Question Time and the more stupid aspects of it. I do not regard Question Time as such an intelligent procedure as do some people. I hope that if there are further broadcasts they will be concerned with a broader range of affairs and not be obsessed with Question Time.
I agree with my right hon. Friend that we should proceed cautiously in bringing the broadcasting media into our Committees. There may be merit in broadcasting the proceedings of Select Committees but, having sat on a great number of Standing Committees, both as a Minister and as a Back Bencher, my experience is that on many occasions the proceedings approach the farcical. Before we rush

into demonstrating that our Standing Committees are marvellous examples of political discussion we might reform the means by which we take Bills through the House.

Mr. Macfarlane: Does not my hon. Friend agree that some of his fears might be eliminated if Committee proceedings were broadcast?

Mr. Grant: I am not sure that I agree. I would rather that we ourselves reformed the procedures. I am not averse to taking broadcasting into Committees, but we should do so gradually and carefully.
Until recently, I had some responsibility for parliamentary candidates. My experience is that they are concerned to communicate with the public and their fellow-Members. They are more concerned to participate, less enamoured of the glory of being able to put "MP" after their names, and less impressed in the House of Commons being the best club in the world. Among them I found a lack of understanding of why we were not prepared to use the most modern techniques available cautiously and responsibly. If we turn our backs upon broadcasting we shall deter some of the most responsible, sincere and capable people in the community from coming forward to participate in what should be the most important assembly in the land.

5.6 p.m.

Mr. Clement Freud: It must be remembered that the experiment in broadcasting was, of course, an experiment. Speaking as a sometime member of the Broadcasting Sub-Committee, I am aware that there were aspects which could have been better and which I am sure will be better. The experiment was valuable, and I support its continuation.
In speaking of the value of experimentation I should mention the amazing survival ability shown by two grown men who were incarcerated in a crowded box in which they perspired out of all proportion to human decency and still managed to do a very good job. It was the hard work and tolerance of those gentlemen which made the broadcast possible and enabled us to appreciate it as much as we did.
The hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant) said that we receive the


reverence we deserve. In the broadcasting of the proceedings of the House we receive the reverence we deserve by live performance. We all know that Hansard, excellent volume that it is, is perfectly capable of being changed, albeit within the directives of Hansard that it must be made more comprehensible. It is right that the public at large should be allowed to hear exactly what people say, punctuational warts and all. Our speeches tend to read much more impressively than they sound.
My grandmother had a prayer, which I commend to the House, "God preserve my excuse". That sounded better in Viennese. We all know the popular excuse. When people say "What a lot of rubbish", we say "They got it wrong". By eliminating this often repeated and tedious excuse of parliamentarians that they are misquoted, broadcasting gives Members of Parliament a great incentive to say what they mean. On the same basis, the broadcasting of the House separated the people who shouted "Yah-boo" from a sedentary position from strength from those who did so from weakness. In fact, when the proceedings of the House were being broadcast, a large number of hon. Members suddenly began to behave very differently from the way in which they had behaved previously. Perhaps that is all for the good.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) said that he was in favour also of televising the House. I think it has to be realised that a certain amount of editing can be done, very properly, with the spoken word. It may be done for greater clarity. It has never seemed important to me to speak for a long time if one can speak sensibly and to the point; therefore I do not think that any hon. Member should complain if his voice is heard for 20 seconds, as opposed to somebody else who is heard for a long time. The great danger of television is that, being visual, it would be very hard to know whether we should have a television picture of the man speaking, of the people listening, of those not listening, of those asleep, or of those talking among themselves.
The strength of sound broadcasting is that it picks up solely the voice of the

person speaking, albeit with an intervention every now and again. The onus of selection is not put as heavily on the independent parties who are instrumental in engineering the broadcasting of the House.

Mr. Robert Cooke: The hon. Member will, I hope, acknowledge that when a somebody, such as himself, is speaking in the House, and a Member such as myself seeks to get up and intervene, that Member such as myself, not being a celebrity, would nevertheless probably get into the radio broadcast, thus distorting the debate.

Mr. Freud: I was expecting almost anything but that in the hon. Member's intervention. Certainly hon. Members tried, ever more frequently, to get in on the Prime Minister's Questions when the proceedings of the House were being broadcast. The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke) obviously has a point here. I think it would wear off within the first two or three weeks of sound broadcasting, either by the hon. Member's resignation from this House, or as a result of people being bored by trying to get on to television in this way.
I felt that the sound broadcasting experiment was a valuable and very good one. I am delighted that a large number of Members so far seem to be in favour of making it a permanent one. I think that the House and the people of this country would be the better for it.

5.14 p.m.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: It is a little daunting to stand up with the almost certain conviction that at the end of the day one will be voting on the losing side. But I do so in order to expose what seem to me to be one or two fallacies which continually creep into our consideration of the merits of sound broadcasting and of television coverage of the proceedings in this Chamber.
I voted for the experiment. I intend to vote against the motion tonight, basically because it seems to me that many of the assumptions behind the arguments of those who are in favour of the motion are false and based on fallacious premises.
The first fallacy which strikes me is that somehow or other we have to be in favour of sound broadcasting, or television broadcasting, because that must be an extension of democracy. I have never quite understood that argument. The argument seems to be that the more people can feel themselves to be present at the point at which decisions are made, the greater is the extension of the democratic process.
All experience seems to me to suggest—I am not trying to make a value judgment or to say that it is necessarily a good thing that this seems to be the case—that if the glare of publicity is brought into a particular decision-making situation, we inevitably move the decision-making situation somewhere else, creating theatre at the point at which the decision was thought to be made.
There is absolutely no objection in principle to televising Cabinet meetings, but if they were televised, the Cabinet meetings would be theatre, and the real meetings and decisions would take place somewhere else. That seems to me to be the evidence from all sorts of experiments and examinations of this sort.

Mr. Anthony Grant: The proceedings of this House have always been open to the public, who can either come here or read the reports in the Press, whereas the proceedings of the Cabinet have always—until recently at least—been totally confidential.

Mr. Grocott: The extent to which the proceedings of the Cabinet are confidential is a moot point. I accept that what we are arguing now is in essence an extension of coverage that already exists. I take that point, but it seems to me to be a very significant extension, and almost certainly to have profound effects in terms of the kind of place this is, the sort of decision taken here, and the way this place operates.
The second fallacy, which I feel is associated with the arguments of those who believe that the proceedings of the House should be televised, is that somehow or another it will lead to more informed public debate of the major political issues that we discuss in this House—that it will lead to a more informed public in terms both of the methods of the House and of the sort of issue we have to discuss.
That is not my judgment. This is partly because of the response I have had from constituents to the broadcasting of our proceedings. I do not know to what extent it squares with the views of other hon. Members, but these reactions have been almost entirely in terms of the theatre of the place. The reaction has not been to say, for example, "I was convinced by the argument I heard", or "That seemed to be a substantial case". The reactions were almost always related to the duels between the Front Benches being impressive or entertaining, or the shouts from the Back Benches. It was basically seen as a form of theatre, and I heard no comments to indicate that the result had been to produce a more enlightened public audience, or that because of the experiment there was in the country a substantial debate going on about the real issues of politics.
I also have the feeling that the only effect of any permanent broadcasting from this House would be partly to make us feel that we are even more important than some of us tend to think already, and also to expand the already serious over-dramatisation of what goes on here. This is a problem that we ought to recognise.
It is brought home to me daily when I pursue my normal habit in the evening of telephoning my wife some 150 miles from here and talking about the events of the day. Day after day my wife, relying on the coverage she gets from television, radio and the rest, has a completely different view from mine of what appears to have happened here during the day. Time and time again she will say "My word, you have had a day today", or "My word, what a crisis", or she will refer to some dramatic intervention, to which my reaction is "What dramatic intervention? What took place? "
I do not want the proceedings of this House to be further over-dramatised. Over-dramatisation is one of the dangers we have already. It is not conducive to good government or to the serious consideration of issues.
Suppose we were to apply the same assumptions to any other workshop, factory or office in Britain. Suppose we were to tell the people concerned that day in and day out the media would be concentrated on them and on what they


do. Suppose we were to say, "The media will interview you during the course of the day. It will ask you for your opinions on various other people who work in the same place. It will ask you to comment on the progress of the firm. There will be interviews as you leave work each evening, and you will be televised." Would that be conducive to a sensible operation of the place, or to a sensible decision-making process? There is not much evidence that that would be the case. I am extremely concerned that the decision to broadcast will not lead to any sensible discussion of the important issues that it is our duty to discuss.

Mr. Rathbone: Is it not a fallacy to draw a comparison between a factory which is manufacturing various products and a parliamentary debating chamber which depends entirely for its power on the support it has amongst the people who have elected it?

Mr. Grocott: I do not pretend that there is an exact parallel but in essence it is a situation in which a group of people are working towards an objective. For that to be continually and critically under the microscope is in no sense conducive to good decision-making and the good operation of the system.
For some reason it is assumed that the televising, and certainly the radio coverage, of the Chamber will enhance Parliament. That means nothing unless it will enhance the Back Benchers—the people who comprise 530 of the 635 Members of this House. The experience of the experiment, and my judgment of what could happen if broadcasting became permanent, is that it would do no such thing. It would enhance the Executive, and of that there is little doubt. It is inevitable that the media would concentrate on covering the Front Bench dialogues and the ministerial statements. I do not want to be part of a system which will inevitably enhance the Executive. That is the view which I commend to all those who are seriously concerned about the views, aspirations and arguments that Back Benchers put forward.
Most of the arguments in favour of broadcasting seem to be based on fallacious assumptions. I am conscious that

it is almost certain that those who think as I do will lose when we vote tonight. I am also conscious of the danger of being accused of being a reactionary in opposing the natural progress of events. By way of mitigation, if I need to put forward any, I point out that I might take a different view if I could be convinced that the coverage by radio would be full time, permanent and on a special station so that people could switch on and off just as they may come into the Public Gallery, take their chance and leave when they wish to do so. That is a different matter which I should be prepared to consider. However, that is not what we are considering tonight. Therefore, I shall vote against the motion.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. John MacGregor: I do not want to till over the ground which has already been well trod. So I wish to make only two points. The hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Grocott) made a good speech and many hon. Members share some of his reservations. I am, in principle, subject to reservations I shall make, in favour of broadcasting but I share the hon. Gentleman's reservations about the concentration on the theatre, the over-dramatisation and perhaps in many cases the trivialisation of the House. One of my great worries is that unless we broadcast a fair spread of what goes on in the House and get away from the concentration on Question Time, that will be precisely the effect that broadcasts will have on the public.
Like the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth, I frequently get reactions from my constituents and from others whom I meet in my daily business inside and outside the House which concentrate almost entirely on Question Time and especially on the Prime Minister's Question period. We all know that often there are many more important matters being discussed in the House.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) has left the Chamber because he made the interesting revelation that he looked upon this place as a factory. I believe that perhaps one of our present problems is that there are far too many Members who take that view. I echo the worries


of my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) about too much legislation. But those who look upon this place as a factory will be tempted to feel that we are judged solely by the amount of legislation we pour out. It becomes a matter of quantity rather than quality. I agree with my hon. Friend that we are, at present, suffering from over-government and over-legislation. If that is the attitude of some Labour Members who are constantly pressing their Government to do more, one can understand why we have these present difficulties.
The first matter I wish to discuss concerns the Committees. I make no apology for returning to this matter because clearly there is a division of views. Comments have been made on both sides by the House. I firmly share the view that if we do broadcast again we should move towards the broadcasting of Committees as quickly as possible and get over the acoustic and other technical difficulties. I take that view partly for the reasons to which I have already referred concerning the over-dramatising of certain events in the Chamber.
Some of the most valuable work done in the House takes place in the Select and Standing Committees. I feel that some of the most worthwhile activity that I have been able to achieve in my two years as a Member of Parliament has been done in those Committees. Perhaps I may take just one example. The General Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Expenditure has been considering the Public Expenditure White Paper. Much of the work of that Committee had a great bearing on our debate in the Chamber last week. If that Committee had not had a fair amount of publicity beforehand, which fortunately it did, its work would have gone almost entirely unrecognised. I believe that it is very often in the Select Committees that Ministers and senior officials can be put on the spot and the serious probing work can be done. There is no question in my mind that often what takes place in the Committees is more useful than what happens at Question Time, which, as hon. Members have said, is sometimes concerned only with publicity-seeking, frequently for constituency reasons, which often does not require a great deal of thought and which

can border on the farcical. Any Minister worth his salt can evade real discussion of the Question. Unless we include some of the Select Committees in this scheme, once again we shall be risking the pandering to the trivial.
I am bound to apply the same comments to the Standing Committees. I appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant) that sometimes, especially late at night, some of the work done and some of the debates which take place in Standing Committees are not of the highest order. However, that is by no means true of them all. I recall that much of the work dealing with the Finance Bill on the capital transfer tax, which in many ways had enormous and revolutionary consequences, was done in Standing Committee.
We must also remember that we are not proposing that there should be constant broadcasting of Standing and Select Committees. The broadcasting would be selective. I can speak only of the Committees of which I have been a member, but I am sure my comments are true of many of the other Committees. As I understand the Report, the Committees would have the option of saying whether they should be broadcast or not. What is more, the broadcasting authorities would have an editing function. Therefore, the Committees which would be chosen would be those which were really worth while from a wider public point of view.
In order to get across much of this work, which unhappily does not receive as much Press coverage as it should, we must insist that we move as quickly as possible towards the broadcasting of the Standing Committees.

Mr. John Peyton: I hope that my hon. Friend will think carefully before advocating that broadcasting should be introduced into the Standing Committees. I believe—and I ventured to express this view in a speech I made the other day—that the Standing Committees are perhaps the worst feature in the whole of the legislative chain, and to impose upon the public a diet containing quite so much roughage as Standing Committees and the Reports of Standing Committees contain would be absolutely intolerable and


would jeopardise the reputation of Parliament for all time.

Mr. MacGregor: I know that my right hon. Friend takes that view because I heard him express it in his speech to which he referred. I am bound to say that I take a different view. I have read much of the evidence given to the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, of which I am not a member. However, I found much of that evidence most helpful. Indeed, this is true of many of the Select Committees. I know that my right hon. Friend referred to the Standing Committees, but I believe that the Select Committees often contain much valuable information and that that is also true of certain Standing Committees. I know that often when one is trying to prolong a debate a lot of triviality takes place. But equally, when it is known that a particular Standing Committee is being broadcast, many serious points will be made and will come across seriously.
The second point I wish to make has not, so far, received sufficient attention in the debate. I am in favour of the principle of broadcasting. However, I have great reservations about doing it at this time for the following reason which may not sound critical but which in my judgment is most important. Last week we had a two-day debate on public expenditure. I do not wish to go over that ground again, but many of us in the House, and certainly many people outside, are conscious of the need now for heavy restraint on all public expenditure, not least because the projections in the White Paper are clearly based on the wrong growth assumptions, assumptions which will never materialise. As a result much desirable public expenditure will not take place. There is therefore an obligation on us all in this House, in anything we are considering, to ask what extra burden it will add to public expenditure, whether it is a high priority, and how desirable it is that that programme should go through while some other programme is abandoned or restrained.
I accept that the costs of the broadcasting proposal are small—about £310,000 for the capital costs and £275,000 for the operating costs. However, in year 1 that amounts to more than £500,000, and we should therefore look seriously at the public expenditure

implication to see whether we are not being self-indulgent. It is terribly easy to say that something is desirable and that therefore we must have it. Perhaps, too, we are not giving the lead we should be giving on restraint in this area, a lead which we did not have last week.
The Minister's reply to this point will condition how I vote. I accept that the BBC is entitled to allocate priorities, but I should like the guarantee that the BBC itself will ensure cuts elsewhere if we vote for this additional expenditure tonight. I should like to be certain that Parliament will not be voting some additional Department of the Environment expenditure because the IBA has said that it would prefer it to happen that way.
I am sceptical not only about the cost estimates but also about any vague assurances we get that this proposal will not increase a subsidy from the public purse. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be able to assure us quite firmly in this case that there will be no additional burden on public expenditure and that cuts will be made elsewhere to take account of this extra service. It is easy to say that these are small sums, but that has always been the case for any additional expenditure we may vote, and we must say "Stop" at some point.
It is easy also to say that communications to the electorate are important. However, we are not talking about the non-dissemination of information from Parliament. Dissemination is already taking place in a wide variety of ways, especially through radio and television, so we are talking only about whether an extra dimension should be added. With so many other areas of desirable public expenditure being postponed, unless we can be assured that this proposal will not add to public expenditure we ought to say that whenever we can implement it we should do so, but not now.

5.34 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: I want to pursue the line taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Grocott). The public should be made aware that there are different departments in the parliamentary system, that there is the House of Commons where the general debates take place, and that there is also the Establishment, of which the public are not


aware. The Establishment contains the people with real power, the decision-makers. They expect the Back Benchers to act year in and year out as Lobby fodder while often Back Benchers sincerely believe that their contribution will help to mould the thinking of the Government. That, of course, is completely untrue.
I have spent hundreds of hours in this Chamber listening to speeches over the years, but I have never found a Back Bencher who has managed to change the direction of Government decisions—except, that is, for a short while ago when nine of my colleagues went into the Lobby with the Opposition in support of the amendment on the earnings rule. It is only at times such as that that Back Benchers can make their power felt. If they are not prepared to do that, they will never change the direction of Government policy.
For some years I served on the Public Petitions Committee. We wanted to discover what happened to the millions of signatures appended to messages sent to this honourable House making pleas on behalf of one cause or another, all of them highly important in the eyes and opinions of the people who organised the petitions. I asked at a meeting of the Committee what happened to the signatures when they had been dealt with. We were told that they would be put in one of the spare storage rooms beneath the clock, probably for about six months or a little longer, and would then be destroyed.
The Committee then decided to ask for the power to send for persons and papers, to visit the places and examine the cause of the complaints contained in the petitions. The Establishment refused to give us the power which would make public petitions worth while. The powers in authority then decided to abolish the Committee rather than make it truly effective.
Today a public petition is presented ceremoniously by the Member of Parliament concerned, and he probably hears no more about it. The public expect a Minister from the relevant Department to deal with the petition, but our Committee found that that was not happening.
I should like to see public attention focused, through television or sound, on the departmental meetings with deputa-

tions that come to see Ministers about unemployment, about the avoidance of redundancy, about the development of industry, about education and about social services generally. We had a meeting with the Department of Industry a few weeks ago, and if someone had given us the authority then to speak to the nation as a deputation, offering a similar facility to the departmental side, that would have taught the people far more about parliamentary affairs than listening to a House half-full of Back Benchers. These are the things which matter.
The public should understand why a Member of Parliament does not have the power which they think he has. We should make it clear that we make a contribution only by supporting the Government in the Division Lobby as members of the Government side, or by opposing the Government as members of the Opposition. It is important that that is appreciated by students and by those who have never had the opportunity of learning where the seat of real power lies. Very few people realise that helpful publications are available. Many officers and past officers of the House have written good publications about the House and our parliamentary proceedings.
Literally thousands of school children visit the House when it is sitting, and especially from England and Wales. They come with the object of learning something about the parliamentary system. In fact, it is a matter that now counts as an A-level subject. Many thousands of students have chosen to take the British parliamentary system as one of their A-levels. I know that the last thing many Members want is for their young constituents to return home to write a thesis on what they saw during their morning tour of the Houses of Parliament.
Half of our young visitors, if they are lucky, get into the Strangers Gallery and listen to Question Time. Most of them have to leave between 4 o'clock and 6 o'clock to return home. That is why I say that it is necessary, if we are to have a sound or television system, to broadcast the Committees that really count. Such broadcasting would be especially relevant to members of the public who want to know more. If they want to know how a Cabinet operates, the information is not available to them as they are secret sessions.

Mr. David Mitchell: I agree that it would be entirely desirable to have the broadcasting of the House, but the question to which I hope the hon. Gentleman will address himself is whether we can afford it. I should love to have a holiday in the South of France but I cannot afford it. I hope that the House will consider the cost that is involved.

Mr. Spriggs: We cannot afford to tell half-truths or half-facts. If we are to broadcast the proceedings of the parliamentary system, we must broadcast the whole of it and let the nation see how the system operates, how the Establishment decides upon its priorities and its economic policy. For obvious reasons I do not go so far as to say that we should broadcast the proceedings of defence Committees, but we should broadcast the proceedings of Committees dealing, for example, with social services and our economic problems.
At present, many people do not understand why there is so much unemployment. They consider that it is completely unnecessary in many instances. For exemple, Todd Steel Ltd. made a profit last month but last weekend the gates were closed. It had a full order book. However, the City spivs had stepped in and demanded the repayment of a loan. That is the sort of matter that is discussed in Committee with the Department of Industry, but the men and women in my constituency do not understand how a firm with a full order book, which has refused about £750,00 worth of orders in the past few weeks, can close down.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. The hon. Gentleman is going rather wide of the subject under discussion.

Mr. Spriggs: I am always grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If we mean what we say about the broadcasting of the House, we should broadcast the proceedings in Committee where decisions are taken. I have in mind the decisions that are taken by Ministers and Departments in private, meetings at which confidential excuses and reasons are given for not taking action upon various matters. That is where broadcasting should start. In fact, the Chamber provides

the least of the vital information that should be made known to the country.
I believe that it is necessary to establish a sub-editing committee. The motion refers to the setting up of a permanent system of broadcasting but it does not deal with the editing of debates. Unless we amend the motion immediately a permanent system comes into operation we shall have the broadcasting authority using its own discretion to edit our debates. Those who take part regularly in debates will perhaps be recorded and broadcast time and time again, but there will be many Members who will never be broadcast because their submissions will not suit the authorities or the Establishment.
If we approve the motion as it stands, the BBC or IBA, whoever broadcasts our debates, will not go ahead and broadcast any and every debate willy-nilly. They will consult the Establishment and the usual channels which get together to decide the business this week or next week. They will have a finger in the pie, and they will decide who is to be broadcast on a certain day.

5.49 p.m.

Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex): The hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Grocott) told the House in an interesting speech that when he rings his wife at the end of the day her general comment to him, based on the television news flashes that she has heard throughout the day, is "My goodness, you have had a dramatic day, haven't you?" My wife says that, too, but tends to add, "Did you achieve anything?" That is a very much more difficult question for Government or Opposition Back Benchers to answer.
I believe that we could answer that question in part by the full and continuous broadcasting of our proceedings. However, I propose to vote against the motion. I appreciate that that sounds a contrary remark. It might invite the comment from the Chancellor that I am out of my tiny Chinese mind.
But I am concerned that the Select Committee, in submitting its Report, has left too open the question of the method by which our proceedings should be broadcast. That is covered by the first


sentence of the second paragraph in the Report, which says:
It was not within Your Committee's order of reference to consider how this
—the sound broadcasting—
should be done.
I accept that it was not in the Committee's terms of reference, but I very much regret it. What I fear is that if we continue with broadcasting on the same basis as we had it in the summer months of last year, we shall on a permanent basis hand over to editors, however well-intentioned they may be—and clearly those who handled our proceedings last summer did an excellent job—a very substantial power of editing and cutting which will slowly grow in a way which this House could come greatly to regret.
Therefore, I submit that it is at this moment that the House should decide on sound broadcasting, but on a full-time, continuous basis, and that it is only on this basis that we should agree to it.
I agree very much with the remarks made last week by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore). In fact, it was my reading of his comments next morning which finally decided me not to vote for the motion, as I had done on a previous occasion, but to vote against it. I fear that the editing that we had in the summer months of last year and that we shall continue to have in the future puts power in the hands of those to whom I referred just now and also gives an unrepresentative view of our proceedings.
We heard last week, and we have heard again today, about the way that the knock and tumble and the music hall aspects of our proceedings got too much attention. In my own constituency, I was interested to find a clear division of opinion about it. The younger voters supported what they had heard. They thought that it showed that we had spirits inside us. Whether they were physical or alcoholic spirits was not important. Older voters, on the other hand, were quite horrified. They felt that this was not at all what they had expected of the House, that far too much of our time was spent on knock-about stuff, and that they were as a whole bitterly disappointed.
I make the suggestion that the broadcasting should be on a continuous basis

in no way because I feel, as a very junior Back Bencher, that I did not get my fair share of the limited time available last summer. From what my constituents told me afterwards, it was clear that I did—and probably more so. But the reason for this was that I was lucky, on a number of the Tuesdays and Thursdays which were broadcast, in coming within the first three Questions or so in the ballot for Questions for the Prime Minister. For that reason, my constituents often heard me asking questions of the Prime Minister. It was simply that I had succeeded in the printers' ballot. They might well have thought what an energetic fellow their Member of Parliament was. I am delighted that they should feel that. But it is by its very nature unfair.
It is not right that the hearing of a Back Bencher on radio should depend on whether he sticks a piece of chewing gum on the back of his Question so that that is the one which the printer picks up. It is obvious from the laughter that some hon. Members have not heard about that custom. I was told about it on my second day in this House.
It would be much better in the limited time available to a Back Bencher that, when a constituent says to his Member "I have not heard you speak on the radio for some time", or "I would like to hear you speak", the Member was able to say "I shall be speaking on the Second Reading of "—to take an example—"the Education Bill next week. I have a good chance of catching Mr. Speaker's eye because I have not spoken for some weeks. Therefore, if you tune in, you will definitely hear me." That would be a very much fairer and better basis.
It is said that there would be no interest at all in a general broadcasting of our run-of-the-mill proceedings. I doubt this very much. I quote just one example. It was the Third Reading debate on the Industry Bill, which was broadcast in full. I believe that it lasted for about three and a half hours. I compare it to the perfect Chinese meal. It had "starters", it had "closers", and in between it had a number of well-prepared but small dishes each of which was presented by a Member who had probably served on the Standing Committee on the Industry Bill, who knew


a lot about the business, and who therefore spoke in a very informed way. The broadcasting of that debate was a very good vignette of our proceedings.
A few weeks later, I was up in the Potteries. Out of the blue, someone told me that he had been pruning his roses that afternoon, had taken his radio into the garden with him, and had listened enraptured throughout to the broadcast proceedings of the Third Reading of the Industry Bill.
We should not be too bashful about ourselves. I believe that there would be more general interest in a total broadcast of our proceedings than some of us think. We have the Australian experiment with which to compare ourselves. There, as hon. Members will know, all the proceedings are broadcast and, of course, anyone bored by it can turn off at any time. But there it is, on the radio. Anyone can choose to listen to it if he wishes. For anyone who is alone or far away from the centre of government, it is clearly a matter of great interest to be able to listen in full to a matter which interests him.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my hon. Friend explain in a little more depth how voting against the motion will make it more likely to get non-stop broadcasting of our debates?

Mr. Renton: I do not know whether my hon. Friend was here earlier, but my point was that if we hand over control of the way that broadcasting is to be established to a Joint Committee, it will effectively move out of our hands. I should like to see it decided in this House first that broadcasting is to be on a continuous, full-time basis, and not hand it over to a Joint Committee.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) that full-time broadcasting should include Standing Committee and Select Committee proceedings as well. This again would show the public at large what our work load is and of what it consists. My right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) has said on a number of occasions that Standing Committee proceedings

are often a farce, and I agree. They need to be changed. But we are all very much involved in them. We spend a great deal of time serving on Standing Committees, and it is right that the public should know this. The fact that they are being broadcast will force us to change our Standing Committee procedures, which we all want to do.

Mr. William Price: Would not it make more sense to support this motion tonight and to let it go to a Joint Committee? Then the Committee will make its recommendations, which will have to come back here for approval. If the hon. Gentleman does not like what the Joint Committee decides, that will be the time to vote against it.

Mr. Renton: In view of the fact that the Minister is supporting the motion, I must expect a remark of that kind from him. However, I feel that this is a matter of principle. I am against the editing of our proceedings and, therefore, I cannot support the motion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South said that he feared that the cost would be very high. My hon. Friend is well known for his concern about public expenditure, which I support. He, too, doubts whether he can support the motion. I should like to put the contrary view. If there is no need for editing, if what we are to have coming forward on one channel is a sound Hansard of our proceedings from which television or the newspapers can pick and choose what they want, the cost should not be so great because there will be no need for editors or cutters; professionals will not be involved. Metaphorically speaking, a tap will be turned on at 10.30 in the morning, champagne will pour forth—in the case of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) flat beer—and listeners throughout the country will be able to drink when they will. I do not think that the cost involved should be all that great. Therefore, I regret that unless we are assured of sound broadcasting on a permanent and continuous basis, I cannot support the motion.

6.1 p.m.

Mr. Eric Ogden: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr.


Renton) on some of the points that he made as other hon. Members wish to speak. Indeed, I hope to help to reduce the average time of speeches in this debate.
I start perhaps cynically with the opinion that the attention of most people outside this Chamber is at this moment directed to other matters than whether Parliament's proceedings should be broadcast. Yet we are deciding on a matter which will fundamentally change the House of Commons as I have known it for the past 10 years. Therefore, we should take that step very carefully.
I have no objection in principle—there could be no objection in principle—to the broadcasting of our proceedings. The principle was established hundreds of years ago when it was decided that the sayings of Members of the House of Commons were to be reported. The form in which that reporting has taken place has varied from generation to generation, but the principle of reporting the proceedings of Parliament has been with us for about 600 years. Therefore, we are not establishing the principle but changing the practice.
In the debate last week some of my hon. Friends suggested that broadcasting the proceedings in Parliament would be a good way of controlling the Executive. It might be a way, but it would be low down on my list of priorities on how to control the Executive.
Two matters concern me. One is the idea that, because there has been an experiment which some people thought was valid and useful, this should be the basis for the permanent broadcasting of our proceedings. I would prefer an extended experiment for 12 months.
The comments concerning the trial broadcasts made to me by members of my family and constituents were that broadcasting in the first week was viewed with great interest, in the second week this had calmed a little, in the third week there was criticism and in the fourth week there was almost complete boredom. No one from Merseyside has either lobbied or written to me to the effect "We feel deprived and neglected. Because this interesting and exciting experiment is no longer with us, we can no longer tune in to your radio channel." None of my constituents seems to be

unaware of what I have or have not been doing for the reason that the broadcasting of our proceedings no longer takes place.
People are concerned about the cost, and we should be concerned, too. My experience in this place is that if a Minister says that something will cost £200,000, in a short time it will cost £2 million. That applies to both Conservative and Labour Governments. I do not suggest that if we decide to forgo the experiment we should have a ballot and one lucky Member should be able to get enough money out of the Exchequer for a nursery, a swimming pool, or something else for the public good. We cannot say that there are better ways of spending this money. However, when the Government are asking the country to agree to limiting public expenditure, I suggest that the broadcasting of our proceedings and the cost ought to have a very low priority indeed. There are too many unknown factors. We are giving a blank cheque. That is a horrible cliché, and I try to avoid clichés.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary suggested that, whatever doubts we may have, we should agree on the principle and send the matter upstairs to a Committee to sort out the details. If we do that, we are committed. Whoever sorts out the details will be told that the House has decided that it wants permanent broadcasting of its proceedings. Therefore, what we decide tonight will commit us for a long time ahead. It will be too long, too uncertain, and at too great a cost at this time. For that reason, I propose to oppose the motion. We can look at the matter again in perhaps 12 months. My opposition is based not on principle but on practice.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) made a delightful speech. I am sure that we were all interested to discover how to get Questions to the top of the list. I must try it some time.
My hon. Friend said that the proper reporting of Parliament should be like a Chinese meal. Certainly he was one of the tender bamboo shoots or jumping beans in the middle. I hope that the


Minister and I are not the dried-up crust of bread at the bottom.

Mr. Ford: The sweet and sour.

Mr. Cooke: I shall try to be fairly brief. In somewhat more relaxed circumstances I might take half an hour. I understand that we might possibly run to half-past six, if that helps people who wish to catch trains.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) proved my point. The hon. Gentleman walked out of the Chamber as soon as he had finished his speech, having made certain remarks about other hon. Members, which I shall not repeat. That is how some Members will seek to treat Parliament should we have our proceedings broadcast. The dangers of sound broadcasting are not as great as with television, where that sort of thing could have an extraordinary distorting effect. The hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) said that some students in his constituency came to study Parliament for their A-levels. Some hon. Members hardly reach O-level standard when it comes to behaviour in this House.
The Select Committee said that the experiment was by and large technically successful and that sound broadcasting could be continued on a permanent basis. It is for the House to decide on the basis of what the Select Committee tentatively suggested in the Report and to take account of some valid evidence which was collected.
I believe that other matters should be gone into. That is why it is suggested that a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament should look into further details and, as the Parliamentary Secretary conceded, should report back to this House and to the other place for a final decision on how to proceed.
I recognise that the decision we are about to take—there will no doubt be a vote—is of considerable importance. However, there is one domestic matter which I cannot leave aside. The House is given to taking decisions and allowing other people to work out the consequences of them. If we decide to go ahead, we must find somewhere to house the broadcasters.
We heard a heartbreaking story about the conditions under which broadcasters had to work during the experiment. I

agree that they were squalid. However, we can improve those conditions straight away. But we should not displace the few Members who are situated fairly near to this Chamber in conditions not of luxury but of some convenience. It would be intolerable if a great number of broadcasters descended upon the crowded Palace of Westminster and displaced hon. Members who are trying to get on with their work. If we are to broadcast our proceedings, we must have a unit near the Chamber, but a great deal of the back-up can be situated not near the Chamber but within reach.
I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will not mind my saying to him, as I have said to the Lord President more than once, that the Government must exercise their mind regarding the Bridge Street site. That site is earmarked for Parliament. Let there be no mistake about that at all. The Government were right to say that the Spence-Webster building should not be proceeded with on the ground of cost. But there are many other reasons why it would be unwise to proceed with that building. However, the site remains and there are many useful buildings on it which could serve Parliament. We got hold of Norman Shaw, North only through persistent pressure by Back Benchers. There is considerable pressure for the use of Norman Shaw, South and some other buildings.
It is breaking no confidences to say that if we are to have broadcasting, the broadcasters would welcome some of the buildings on the Bridge Street site. But a decision has to be made if we are not to have an untidy caravan shanty town too near the Chamber, blocking up the courtyards and unsatisfactory to all.
As for costs, I am reminded that several things in this building have cost a good deal of money recently. The capital cost of the broadcasting unit is bound up with where it goes. If we can use the existing buildings on Bridge Street the cost will be so much reduced. The capital works will have to be provided by the House because the broadcasters will be to some extent our tenants, invited here to do a job, and we should provide the home for them.
On the other hand, it is not unreasonable that the broadcasters should pay a


substantial part of the running costs. It is largely the broadcasters who, over the years, have applied the pressures for the broadcasting of Parliament. Parliament is now facing up to the problem but it is the broadcasters who have brought us to this position. It is difficult to analyse the situation from the available evidence but when the Joint Committee considers who should pay the running costs, I believe that the broadcasters will have to bear a considerable proportion.
If we go ahead, shall we get a complete picture of Parliament? You, Mr. Speaker, are the guardian of Parliament, and you will want to see that as complete a picture as possible is given. Taken as a whole, the newspapers give a fair impression of Parliament. Newspapers which take Parliament seriously give wide coverage to the work of Select and Standing Committees and specialist journals give even wider coverage. The popular Press, of course, tends to go for the popular events, such as Question Time.
With broadcasting, we shall not have the wide diversity that we have with the Press. There are the BBC, the Independent Radio News, independent radio stations and the BBC local stations, but there is not the fierce competition that one gets with newspapers.
We should have to be certain, before we allowed microphones here, that we would get a fair picture of Parliament across to the listeners. I am not in the pocket of my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) who said that he hoped that Standing Committees would not be broadcast. They must be broadcast. It may even improve the standard of performance in Standing Committees. It is vital that Select Committees are broadcast.
I may be prejudiced, but I appreciate the work of the Public Accounts Committee and the Expenditure Committee. I spent a year of my life on the Select Committee on the Wealth Tax, much of it in public, with very little result in the Press or on radio and television. Some of those deliberations, especially the cross-examinations, would have been of immense value to the public. The complete destruction before the Select Committee of the Marxist case by the Minister for the Arts would have been of great interest to the public.

A proper, balanced, full picture is what we want. We are not concerned with television today—

Mr. Stokes: We shall be.

Mr. Cooke: —but, as my hon. Friend says, the broadcasters are determined to get the cameras in.
Hon. Members may also reflect whether we are opening a Pandora's Box and letting out evils which we shall not be able to control, or whether the situation will be like that which happened when Odysseus went to sleep, rather like the head of the Establishment—not you, Mr. Speaker—leaving wicked Back Benchers to tamper with the box of contrary winds when he was not looking. In the case of Odysseus, when they escaped, it took him 10 years to get home.
If we vote for sound broadcasting, the broadcasters will be determined to leave no stone unturned until they get the cameras in. There is one consolation—that this may be somewhat delayed by the fact that two television studios are coming into operation in Norman Shaw, North, which will mean that the camera-hungry Members will not have to go so far to be interviewed by their local television stations or the BBC.
Many hon. Members are worried about the use to which sound material emanating from the House will be put. Legal advice is that no copyright rests with the House in this matter, so if we are to lay down rules for controlling the use of this material—we laid down rules before, which were ignored—we should have to legislate to alter the Copyright Acts.
The Select Committee dealt with what I would call the Granada incident. That is why the Select Committee's Report took a long time to appear. Granada produced a series called "The Nearly Man". It apologised for the fact that in one episode a small piece of the sound material recorded in this Chamber, with the voice of the Prime Minister, was heard on the radio on the film set. That was a technical infringement for which it apologised unreservedly——

Mr. Russell Fairgrieve: It could have got Mike Yarwood.

Mr. Cooke: For the sake of verisimilitude, it did not go for Mike Yarwood. On this day when that Mike Yarwood character has announced his withdrawal,


not from Parliament, but from the high office that he holds, I shall not go into the matter any further. It wanted the real thing. I prefer the real thing in that case to Mike Yarwood, although there are certain figures on my side of the House whom I think Mike Yarwood does better than they do.
Although Granada apologised, it felt that it was justified in using that excerpt in what it called a programme with a serious social content. I leave hon. Members to make their own judgment whether "The Nearly Man" was a series with a serious social content. I am a director of an independent television company. I am all for freedom of expression and the best possible plays being produced, but if I had produced that series, I would not have tried to make out before a Select Committee that it had a serious social content. It was the same old story of some man or woman in public life getting his private affairs into a mess and that having some bearing on his conduct in this House.
The serious point is that those who produced the series thought that it was all right to use the sound signal for that programme. When we lay down guidelines, we shall have to bear in mind that many people in the media will want to use the sound signal—or the television one, if they get it—for purposes quite different from those that we intend.
When the Report of the Select Committee was published, ITN got in touch with the House and announced that it intended to use sound material in a programme about the Select Committee's Report. Hon. Members may believe that that is a perfectly harmless thing to do. Perhaps it was. However, ITN made it quite clear that it intended to do it despite the rules that were laid down. It said that the experiment was an experiment and that that was the end of the affair. It took quite a lot to persuade ITN that it would be ill-advised to do so.
Unless the BBC should at this moment be preening itself, it also technically infringed the rules because in its review of last year there was the tiniest piece of sound commentary. It was all quite harmless, but those incidents pinpoint the fact that it is easy to break whatever rules are laid down, and some of the breakages were quite serious.
How can we control this? I suppose that a Joint Committee will have to examine the matter carefully. Heaven forbid that the House should censor what comes out of it ! However, it is a different matter from the Press, where there is much wider competition. I suppose that in the ultimate the House of Commons or Parliament can decide to switch the broadcast off. I see that the Minister nods. If sound broadcasting turns out to be a failure—I hope it will be successful—I hope that we shall have the courage to switch it off. My hon. Friends are murmuring behind me because they do not think that we shall have that courage. There is always a first time.
The pressures on us to try this on a permanent basis and to get it right are considerable. On the whole I am against giving into pressures but on this occasion I happen to agree with them. We should proceed. I hope that it will not be necessary to turn the broadcast off but, on the other hand, there is little enough of the solid work and worth of Parliament which now reaches the outside world. Perhaps through sound broadcasting more of it will do so.

6.22 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Privy Council Office (Mr. William Price): This, quitely rightly, is a matter for the House. As the Lord President said in opening the debate, the Government hold no collective view. However, it would be true to say that the majority individual view is in line with that expressed during this debate, that we have had a successful experiment and that we should now take the experiment one stage further.
If the House decides to go ahead with permanent broadcasting—and I understand that the other place has today decided to do so without a vote—we hope that it will be possible to establish a Joint Committee with the minimum of delay. The timetable that we envisage is a report by the Summer Recess at the very latest, so that the necessary work can be carried out in time for a resumption of broadcasting in the autumn. To expect it any earlier would be unrealistic.
Many right hon. and hon. Members have in the past expressed genuine concern about various features of the broadcasting of our proceedings and some of that concern has been repeated, quite properly and fairly, during this debate. It


is right that those feelings should be considered, not only in the light of the experiment but in the realisation that broadcasting could be with us for a long time to come.
For what it is worth my view is that the experiment helped to dispel at least some of the fears. I believe that the broadcasting was objective. It involved more than 350 Members. It did not produce the theatrics that some of us expected, and it led, I understand, to very few complaints to the broadcasting authorities.
There was evidence of considerable public interest. The viewing figures were well up on normal.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Listening figures.

Mr. Price: Yes.

Mr. Robert Cooke: A Freudian slip.

Mr. Price: In a sense. They were listening figures.
Audiences for reports of the House are relatively small. The main audience is at 6 p.m., 9 p.m. and 10 p.m. The extracts that were used were quite considerable. Therefore, there is an element of viewing as well as listening. It is significant that both the BBC and the Independent Authority want to come back on a permanent basis.
The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) raised four matters of importance to which I should like to refer briefly—first, what he described as "zoological noises". I was much intrigued by the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) that the way to stop the noises and for people to understand what goes on is to allow hon. Members to clap one another's performance. That was put forward last Tuesday night as a serious proposition. It might create difficulties if the Opposition insist on giving the Leader of the Opposition a standing ovation lasting seven minutes or eight minutes. We should need to come to an understanding on that. However, radio did not invent those noises. They exist, and there is no point in trying to deny it.
If we tried any form of censorship I believe that we should take away some of the unique character of this Chamber. There is, nevertheless, some evidence that

background noise was amplified, and I have asked the broadcasting authorities to give the matter some attention. They believe that they can improve the situation. I am told that much of the trouble is the placing of the two microphones in front of the Dispatch Boxes. It is far too technical for me, but I understand that if they were moved considerably nearer to Front Bench spokesmen it would help.
The right hon. Member for Yeovil raised the question of balance, as did many other hon. Members. I accept the argument that broadcasting produced a bias and is almost certain to continue to produce one, in favour of the Government of the day. They have the benefit of ministerial statements as well as their own Back Benchers. That assumes that all ministerial statements and speeches help the Government and that all Back Benchers wish to be helpful. I should have thought that both assumptions were rather dangerous at present. However, there is no use trying to hide the fact that the Government had an advantage. The figures prove it beyond all reasonable argument. I must say that I have no ready answer to that. However, what is necessary is that, with the broadcasting authorities, we should keep a close watch on this matter and endeavour to achieve the best possible balance, even allowing for the difficulties.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane) raised the question of accommodation. I agree wholly with the remarks of the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke). This matter is entirely for the House, and no one in his right senses would attempt to tell hon. Members what to do with the limited space at their disposal.
There is no problem over the processing of the signal. It requires a very small room, and I understand that it could be provided. It is more than likely that the broadcasting authorities would accept Bridge Street for their main operation, if we were able to offer it. The major difficulty appears to be the commentary box, and anyone who saw it during the experiments will appreciate the fact that it could not be used indefinitely. The Department of the Environment has suggested situating the commentary box away from the Chamber. It believes that remote-controlled cameras


would enable commentators to fulfil their function at a distance.

Mr. Macfarlane: Will the Minister indicate, as Bridge Street will not be available, what could be provided in the interim period?

Mr. Price: I am not at all sure that there will be an interim period. I hope that Bridge Street may become available. However, I cannot give any assurance to the House about that at present. If it does not become available we shall have to look elsewhere. I shall deal shortly with possible estimates.
According to the advice that I have been given, the proposal that the commentary box could be situated elsewhere and that the commentary could be done by remote control simply is not possible. The cameras are not available. If we adopted that proposal the disruption would be similar to the inevitable disruption that would occur if television cameras were brought here. That is not a starter.
The broadcasters, rightly, want if possible to be in the Chamber and at Floor level. We have looked at all possibilities, but in the end we have to decide whether we are prepared to give up one row under the Gallery. If anyone is in any doubt, it is the one beyond the Bar on the Opposition side of the House. That decision only hon. Members can take.

Mr. Robert Cooke: The Minister has pointed to the wrong corner of the Chamber. He should have pointed to the one on the Government side of the House. The back row below the Gangway in front of the Tannoy window is used only by Government Members to sleep during late night sittings and could well be handed over to the broadcasters. It would be lavish accommodation for them and they would be pleased with it.

Mr. Price: I do not know when they sleep or when they do not. I am inclined to sleep at other times of the day also. We shall look at that possibility.
The south-west corner is a possibility. There is a thick wall there, and it might be possible to take that back rather than forward.
The right hon. Member for Yeovil wanted an assurance that if the Joint

Committee draws up guidelines the matter would come back for final approval. As I made clear a few minutes ago, that would be the case.
In the meantime we shall incur no expenditure. What we shall do—and I think that this is right—is to draw up an estimate of possible costs for submission to the Committee, based on what the House might or might not approve. We have been in some difficulty in this matter in trying to produce any sort of estimates. First, we have no idea what the Joint Committee will recommend. Secondly, we have no idea what accommodation the House is prepared to make available. We are doing our best to provide accurate estimates, so that the Joint Committee may consider the figures.

Mr. David Mitchell: Will the hon. Gentleman guide the House a little more on the matter of expense? If we support him in the motion are we committed to an expenditure which is, as he said, uncertain, or shall we be able, at a later date, to refuse what is offered to us because we cannot afford it?

Mr. Price: That is a fair question. Clearly, the House could not decide on that because I cannot offer any costings. I do not have any. It would have been difficult for me to have come to the House and to have said "I have decided that we shall take that and that, and that the cost is £250,000". I might have had trouble on my hands. We are not in a position to explain exactly the cost. We shall do our best to give estimates to the Joint Committee. The Joint Committee will make recommendations, which will come back to the House. It will be at that stage, as I understand it, that we must decide whether or not we are prepared to take on that expenditure. That seems to me to be a fairly straightforward situation.

Mr. Peyton: I am grateful for what the Minister has just said. It is, then, quite clear that what we are hoping for is conditional upon a later report, which we shall then, later, have a chance of considering.

Mr. Price: That is certainly my understanding of the situation, and that we are tonight really doing no more than approving permanent broadcasting in


principle and asking the Joint Committee to tell us how it ought to be done.
I see one difficulty arising. If the House came to the view that we ought to have permanent broadcasting and then threw out the Joint Committee's report on how we should have it, we should have there a difficulty on which I should need to take advice before telling the House in which direction to proceed. However, I do not see that happening. I hope that it will be possible for the Joint Committee to tell us in a sensible way what cost the House should be prepared to accept.

Mr. Goodhew: Is it not rather unreasonable to be asking the House to support this evening a proposition which says
That this House supports the proposal that the public sound broadcasting of its proceedings should be arranged on a permanent basis
because to do so would be committing the House wholeheartedly to whatever the Committee cares to decide?

Mr. Price: I can only repeat my assurance. I took the advice of the Lord President before coming into the Chamber to make sure that I had got it right, and he had it right. That is that anything that the Joint Committee recommends has to come back here for approval. I cannot put it any straighter than that. If hon. Members take the view that the motion is wrongly worded, they should not blame me. I did not draw it up. I am only giving hon. Members the assurances that they have been seeking—and I have no intention of resigning over the matter.
Several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Ford), spoke in favour of a parliamentary broadcasting unit. It has been clear to me that there is widespread support for that proposal. I would only ask the House to consider three points. First, I ask the House to consider that we should be involved in additional public expenditure by the creation of another group of civil servants, and that possibly highly technical matters of this sort are best left to the experts.
Secondly, and far more important in my view, it will be assumed, perhaps quite wrongly, that we should be attempting some sort of editorial control. I thought that the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) came

very close to that. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) made absolutely no bones about it. He wants a Committee editing, vetting, and submitting our material to the broadcasting authorities. I happen to hold the view, as a newspaper man—and I admit my interest—that broadcasting is best left to the broadcasters.

Mr. Spriggs: Including editing?

Mr. Price: Certainly including editing.
Others will argue that this is purely an administrative matter, that it will ease any copyright and Privilege problems, and that it will help to ensure that the broadcasting authorities continue to treat our proceedings fairly and objectively. Those are powerful arguments to which the Joint Committee will obviously give careful consideration.
At this stage, I should like to make one point. Whilst we are talking this evening about "permanent broadcasting"—this question arose only a few moments ago—I take the view that very few things in this House are that permanent—including Prime Ministers—and that, if we felt that the broadcasting authorities were not playing the game by us or were misbehaving in a manner that was reprehensible, then we could remove them. I do not see that happening. I have no reason to believe that it will. However, it must be regarded, by them as well as by us, as a powerful weapon which will remain with us.
The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) raised a point that I find attractive. I agree with him that the experiment was a good deal fairer to Back Benchers than Portland Place producers, who rarely look beyond the Oxford Union for their contributors. Some 350 hon. Members were used.
The hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore) made a fascinating speech. He asked the question, which was raised also by a number of other hon. Members last week, why do we give advance copies of Government documents to the Press two days in advance? While this matter is somewhat outside the scope of the debate, a number of people have raised it and I should like to deal with it. It is, of course, a practice of long standing and one that has been accepted by Parliament and pursued by successive Governments. It applies not only to


Government White Papers but to some of Parliament's own documents. The reason is well known. The hon. Gentleman told us the reason. The Government of the day want the maximum coverage, and the Press, for its part, claims that 48 hours is the minimum period of time if it is to get it right. I suspect that some could not manage it in 48 days. Nevertheless, we have to make the attempt.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Why should not hon. Members have them 48 hours in advance so that they can get it right?

Mr. Price: I was hoping that someone might ask that question. I am coming to that matter.
I recognise that the system is far from perfect and I know only too well that many hon. Members object to the fact that people outside the House get documents long before they do, and that can create real problems. We all suffer from it, but I know, too, that the system can be abused, and I can cite two recent examples.
We have reason to believe that copies of the devolution White Paper got into the hands of certain hon. Members via the Press long before they should have done. We recently had the New Statesman publishing the White Paper on public expenditure in defiance of a clearly stated embargo. It has the curious idea that all will be well as long as it apologises. One of the problems is that neither the Lobby nor the National Union of Journalists, nor the Guild of Editors, has the ability or willingness to exercise any real discipline over its members.
The Prime Minister has indicated in answer to a Question from the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) that this is a matter which needs to be considered in the near future. What we have to do is attempt to keep a balance between the rights of what we would like to regard as a responsible Press whilst at the same time ensuring that Members of this House are not placed at a disadvantage or given second-class treatment.

Mr. MacGregor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Price: I have listened to a lot of debate and many questions. However, I shall give way.

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to the Minister. He will know from having listened to all of the debate that many hon. Members, while supporting the principle, have considerable reservations about the details and would, therefore, wish to base their vote on the details. Is he saying that in supporting the motion we are simply supporting the setting up of the Joint Committee and not the principle of permanent sound broadcasting?

Mr. Price: No. Perhaps I may tell the hon. Gentleman what I think I am voting for—and I have some reservations of my own. I think that I am voting tonight in principle for permanent broadcasting; that I am not committing myself or anyone else to the expenditure of one penny; that I want the matter to go to the Joint Committee; and that if I do not like what comes back from the Joint Committee, I shall vote against it.

Mr. Michael Brotherton: Will the Minister explain when "permanent" is not permanent. He says that he will vote for the motion because he wants permanent broadcasting but on the other hand he says that if he does not like it he will not want it to be permanent.

Mr. Price: I am voting for the principle of permanent broadcasting. I want to see the details. It may or may not be the case that broadcasting should be continuous. I want to know the costings.
It has been suggested that the way to ease expenditure would be to have continuous broadcasting. I find that a strange argument. It would involve the creation of a completely separate channel, and the cost would be astronomical. I should like to see evidence that there is an audience available for such broadcasts.
If the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) is asking for my definition of the word "permanent" I should be in some difficulty in answering him. I tried to explain that I did believe that it was permanent in the sense that the hon. Gentleman and I normally would accept the word. In other words, if we do not like the result in three or four years' time we should have the courage to re-examine the matter. What I am saying is that the matter is not "permanent" in the sense of "for ever and ever, Amen". We are looking at the


possibility of bringing in broadcasting on a basis to be devised by a Joint Committee. When the matter returns to the House we shall examine it. That seems to be fair and understandable.
This matter has been argued for many years and the time has come for the House to make a decision. Some of us believe that a vote for broadcasting would

strengthen the links with the public, would improve the standing of Parliament in the country, and would counter any allegation that we are operating with an unhealthy degree of secrecy.

Question put:——

The House divided: Ayes 299, Noes 124.

Division No. 88.]
AYES
[6.41 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Deakins, Eric
James, David


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Anderson, Donald
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)


Armstrong, Ernest
Dempsey, James
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)


Arnold, Tom
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Jessel, Toby


Ashley, Jack
Dormand, J. D.
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)


Ashton, Joe
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Jopling, Michael


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Atkinson, Norman
Eadie, Alex
Kaufman, Gerald


Awdry, Daniel
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Kerr, Russell


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Edge, Geoff
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Baker, Kenneth
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)


Bates, Alf
Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Bean, R. E.
English, Michael
Kinnock, Nell


Beith, A. J.
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lambie, David


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Lamont, Norman


Berry, Hon Anthony
Eyre, Reginald
Lane, David


Bidwell, Sydney
Fairgrieve, Russell
Lawrence, Ivan


Biffen, John
Flannery, Martin
Le Marchant, Spencer


Bishop, E. S.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Blaker, Peter
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Ford, Ben
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Forman, Nigel
Litterick, Tom


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Lloyd, Ian


Bottomley, Peter
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Loyden, Eddie


Bradley, Tom
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)
Luard, Evan


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Luce, Richard


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Freeson, Reginald
McCrindle, Robert


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Freud, Clement
McElhone, Frank


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Gardiner, George (Relgate)
MacGregor, John


Bryan, Sir Paul
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Buchan, Norman
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mackintosh, John P.


Buchanan, Richard
George, Bruce
Maclennan, Robert


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Buck, Antony
Ginsburg, David
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Budgen, Nick
Goodhart, Philip
McNamara, Kevin


Burden, F. A.
Gould, Bryan
Madden, Max


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Graham, Ted
Marks, Kenneth


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Marquand, David


Canavan, Dennis
Grant, John (Islington C)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Carter, Ray
Grylis, Michael
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hampson, Dr Keith
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Cartwright, John
Hannam, John
Mayhew, Patrick


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Havers, Sir Michael
Meacher, Michael


Churchill, W. S.
Hawkins, Paul
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hayhoe, Barney
Mendelson, John


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Clegg, Walter
Heseltine, Michael
Mikardo, Ian


Clemitson, Ivor
Hicks, Robert
Milian, Bruce


Coleman, Donald
Hooley, Frank
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Hooson, Emlyn
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Horam, John
Miller, Mrs Millie (llford N)


Cope, John
Hordern, Peter
Mills, Peter


Corbett, Robin
Howell, Rt Hon Denis
Miscampbell, Norman


Corrie, John
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Molloy, William


Crawford, Douglas
Huckfield, Les
Montgomery, Fergus


Crawshaw, Richard
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Critchley, Julian
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)
Hunt, John
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Davidson, Arthur
Hurd, Douglas
Neave, Airey


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Nelson, Anthony


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Newens, Stanley


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Newton, Tony




Normanton, Tom
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Townsend, Cyril D.


O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Trotter, Neville


Onslow, Cranley
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Tuck, Raphael


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Rowlands, Ted
Tugendhat, Christopher


Ovenden, John
St. John-Stevas, Norman
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Sandelson, Neville
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Palmer, Arthur
Scott, Nicholas
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Pardoe, John
Sedgemore, Brian
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Park, George
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Ward, Michael


Parry, Robert
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Warren, Kenneth


Pattie, Geoffrey
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Watkins, David


Penhaligon, David
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Watkinson, John


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Weatherill, Bernard


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Sillars, James
Weetch, Ken


Price, William (Rugby)
Silvester, Fred
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Prior, Rt Hon James
Sims, Roger
Whitehead, Phillip


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Skinner, Dennis
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Radice, Giles
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Wiggin, Jerry


Raison, Timothy
Spence, John
Wigley, Dafydd


Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)
Sproat, lain
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Reid, George
Stanley, John
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Richardson, Miss Jo
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Ridsdale, Julian
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Rifkind, Malcolm
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Stott, Roger
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Strang, Gavin
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Rodgers Geroge (Chorley)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)



Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Mr. Ioan Evans and


Rooker, J. W.
Thornas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Mr. Tim Rathbone.


Roper, John
Thome, Stan (Preston South)




Tomlinson, John





NOES


Alison, Michael
Grocott, Bruce
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hall, Sir John
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Banks, Robert
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Bell, Ronald
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Biggs-Davison, John
Harper, Joseph
Rose, Paul B.


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Hastings, Stephen
Royle, Sir Anthony


Bradford, Rev Robert
Henderson, Douglas
Shaw, Arnold (liford South)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Higgins, Terence L.
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Brotherton, Michael
Holland, Philip
Shepherd, Colin


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Hunter, Adam
Silverman, Julius


Cant, R. B.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Carmichael, Neil
Janner, Greville
Snape, Peter


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Spearing, Nigel


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
John, Brynmor
Spriggs, Leslie


Cohen, Stanley
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Stainton, Keith


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Stallard, A. W.


Cormack, Patrick
Judd, Frank
Stoddart, David


Costain, A. P.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Stokes, John


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Kershaw, Anthony
Stradling Thomas, J.


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Lamborn, Harry
Tapsell, Peter


Delargy, Hugh
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Drayson, Burnaby
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Dunn, James A.
McCartney, Hugh
Thompson, George


Durant, Tony
Macfarlane, Neil
Tinn, James


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Urwln, T. W.


Fell, Anthony
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Wakeham, John


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Marten, Neil
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Mather, Carol
Wall, Patrick


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Molyneaux, James
Watt, Hamish


Forrester, John
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Wellbeloved, James


Fox, Marcus
Morgan, Geraint
Whitlock, William


Fry, Peter
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Williams, Sir Thomas


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Neubert, Michael
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Page, John (Harrow West)
Winterton, Nicholas


Gilbert, Dr John
Parkinson, Cecil
Woof, Robert


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Younger, Hon George


Glyn, Dr Alan
Pendry, Tom



Goodhew, Victor
Percival, Ian
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gourlay, Harry
Phipps, Dr Colin
Mr. Eric Ogden and


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Pink, R. Bonner
Mr. Tim Renton.


Grist, Ian
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Question accordingly agreed to.,

Resolved,
That this House supports the proposal that the public sound broadcasting of its proceedings should be arranged on a permanent basis.

ENERGY POLICY

6.54 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. John Smith): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of Commission Documents Nos. R/210/76 and R/253/76 and of the Government's view that Culham is the best site for the Joint European Torus project.

Mr. Speaker: I must inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen).

Mr. Smith: It is appropriate that we should have a debate this evening about the EEC energy policy as it is approximately a year since the House last debated the EEC Commission documents on Community energy policy. As a meeting of the Council of Energy Ministers is to be held on 25th March, it is particularly appropriate that the House has an opportunity to comment on the proposals in the document. I assure the House that the views expressed by hon. Members will be listened to with care and taken into account when the Government express their views at the Council of Energy Ministers.
I thank the Select Committee on European Secondary Legislation for its continued interest in the subject, which has prompted it to draw the attention of the House to the latest Commission document on Community energy policy. There has been a great deal of discussion in Brussels about a possible common policy but little has been done to come to a decision as yet. However, Community policy in such a complex area cannot be evolved in weeks or months. The latest Commission proposals appear to offer a basis for further progress.
By way of introduction, I should like to say something about the Government's general approach to the development of a common energy policy. We believe that we have a twofold task—first, to work constructively within the Community for the development of policies helpful to the Community as a whole and

to the United Kingdom, and, secondly, to safeguard, as all countries do, our national interest so far as possible within that framework. In contributing to the formulation of the common energy policy, the United Kingdom has consistently drawn attention to the need for a realistic approach, in particular to the need for attention to be paid to the different energy positions and policies of member States in seeking common ground as the basis for joint policies.
At the Energy Council on 26th June last year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State proposed that better headway might be made in developing a Community energy policy if each member State prepared a paper on its national energy position, from which could be compiled a comprehensive and realistic assessment of the energy needs of the Community as a whole. This approach was taken up by other member States and accepted by the Commission. Part of the results are to be seen in one of the documents, R/210/76, namely, in COM(76) 9. The results of the exercise are far from complete, and further useful data will become available later on the basis of which it should be possible to make further progress.
A number of factors have influenced the development of the EEC energy policy recently. First, during the past year or so much progress has been made in the International Energy Agency, to which eight of the EEC members belong. Common measures include, for example, the scheme for sharing oil and restraining demand in an emergency, the programme for long-term co-operation, developing alternative sources of energy, and a minimum safeguard price for oil. In some cases EEC action is required to implement IEA decisions, but more generally progress in the IEA has acted as a catalyst to progress in the EEC.
Secondly, there is the impetus given to the development of EEC policy by decisions taken in the European Council in Rome last December. Those decisions are relevant because the Commission was asked to put forward proposals as soon as possible for appropriate mechanisms to protect existing supplies, develop alternative sources of energy and encourage conservation of energy.
Thirdly, member countries and the Commission have worked well together


in the Conference on International Economic Co-operation. This work continues in the commissions established at the conference.
Perhaps I should turn to the agenda for the next Council meeting. It has not been finally settled, but it is expected to be built around Document R/210/76, which is in three parts. The first, COM (76) 9, is a Commission report on progress made in the development of Community energy policy objectives for 1985. This is intended mainly as a discussion paper for Ministers to review the Community objectives which the Council set just over a year ago. The report shows that the most ambitious targets set by the Council in 1974, to reduce import dependence to 40 per cent., is not now attainable, because the forecasts proposed by the Commission were unrealistic. I doubt whether member States ever believed that the target was attainable.
However, the Community is on course towards reducing its import dependence to 50 per cent., if conservation efforts succeed. This conclusion has been reached on the basis of the national forecasts deriving from the submission of papers suggested by my right hon. Friend last June. The Commission has posed a number of detailed questions which it hopes the Council will be able to answer. We expect that discussion on the document will be broad, aimed at deciding whether the objectives set in December 1974 are in need of revision. It is our view that we should try to introduce a note of realism into the discussion by suggesting that some of the more optimistic targets originally set should be amended in the light of events.
The second paper, COM (76) 10, is a report on the Community action programme for the rational use of energy, together with draft recommendations. The Government attach great importance to energy conservation which in the Department for Energy is the responsibility of my noble Friend, Lord Lovell-Davis. We are considering our response to recommendations made by the Select Committee on Science and Technology of this House, the Advisory Council on Energy Conservation, and the International Energy Agency, as well as the European Community.
EEC activities have concentrated on the proposal for setting collective saving targets and for the rational use of energy. The target is designed to permit a reduction of energy consumption in 1985 to 15 per cent. below the estimates for that year made in 1973. Among the recommendations are proposals covering thermal insulation, heating systems in existing buildings, better driving habits, urban transport and electrical household appliances.
These recommendations are the product of various working groups on which British experts have played a part, and they are generally acceptable to us, bearing in mind that they are in the form of recommendations rather than directives. We cannot say at present whether we shall be in a position to implement these recommendations, but naturally we shall look at them carefully and sympathetically according to their applicability to British circumstances.

Mr. Peter Rost: The hon. Gentleman appears to have omitted from the list one of the main recommendations—the emphasis on more combined heat and electricity production. Would he care to comment on that?

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend will answer hon. Members' observations in detail at the end of the debate. The documents are fairly bulky and it would take some time to go through them, but I have tried to summarise them and I referred to heating systems in existing buildings, which covers the hon. Member's comment. If it does not, if he makes a contribution during the debate, we will of course answer specifically any point he may make.
The third document, COM (76) 20, is the most important and recommends action in a number of fields of energy policy on many of which the Government hope to see some progress made. The core of the proposals is a draft resolution, Annexe 1, calling for a number of actions to be taken. I do not think that it would be helpful to go into the matter in great detail, but it might help if I made specific reference to some of the major recommendations.
First, there is the recognition of a need for Community financing of coal stocks. At this stage Ministers are being asked to agree only that proposals should be


presented, and until details are settled we cannot say how much the United Kingdom would benefit. But we are much in favour of coal-stocking aid because of the short-term difficulties of the coal industry and the need to maintain it for the future when coal will play an absolutely crucial role. Any policy for development of coal resources in the United Kingdom and the EEC as a whole must take into account the fact that coal production cannot be turned on and off like a tap according to the fluctuations of energy demand.
Secondly, there is the acknowledgement of a need to extend existing Community relations for coking coal and coke. The present support plan runs out in 1978 and the proposals made would allow member States to subsidise production now to maintain capacity for the future. They would also provide a subsidy for sales to encourage purchases of Community coking coal against third country supplies. The subsidies are financed jointly by the Commission, member Governments and by the Community's iron and steel industry. It is also suggested that this system be looked at again in the light of experience. There is no benefit for the United Kingdom in this as our coking coal trade is almost 100 per cent. internal and we cannot obtain a subsidy for our own benefit. None the less, we are prepared to participate in the proposed re-examination.
The third proposal relates to the minimum support price of $7 per barrel f.o.b. for imported oil. It is a fact of life that the cost of producing oil in the North Sea and some other parts of the International Energy Agency area is higher than in traditional oil-producing countries. We need to protect it against a fall in price. We believe that $7 a barrel f.o.b. would be sufficient to cover the major North Sea fields recently under development, but the minimum selling price also protects other indigenous energy resources for which the production costs are higher, thus helping our indigenous gas and coal also.
The figure of $7 a barrel plus freight and insurance charges would cover three-quarters of our existing coal pits and new coal developments. But this production can be achieved only if the MSP is maintained by an external levy which is in the EEC area, that is, a Community

measure. Hence, we need a common external levy under Article 113 of the EEC Treaty, as provided for in the draft resolution, to protect the development of energy resources, of which the United Kingdom possesses a large share.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: Has the right hon. Gentleman the sanction of the French to this? I agree that in the International Agency there is general agreement, but have the French specifically agreed to this proposal?

Mr. Smith: That is one of the matters that will be discussed at the meeting of the Council of Energy Ministers, and it is not for me to anticipate what attitude the French Government will adopt.

Mr. Frank Hooley: Are the Government saying this external levy will be a levy for the benefit of the home Exchequer, or will it go direct to the Commission?

Mr. Smith: At this stage we are considering the details. It is the principle which will concern the Ministers. The purpose of the levy support and minimum selling price is to protect North Sea oil and other indigenous resources.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Would it be a correct alternative to express the object of the levy as to ensure that we pay more for our oil than we otherwise should?

Mr. Smith: The purpose of the levy is to protect investment in our existing North Sea oil and other energy resources. If there were a fall in world price below the cost of production of North Sea oil and other energy resources, that would have a very harmful effect on the development of those resources, which would affect not only the United Kingdom, but other countries which we might supply with energy.

Mr. John Biffen: I sympathise with the Minister of State about the difficulty of finding the actual document at any one moment, but it says in respect of Annexe 1 of the draft resolution that it would enable the Community to obtain its own resources from the application of the system. So is not the answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) that the product of the levy would be to provide Community resources rather than finances for the national country?

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is correct, but I was anxious to establish that the details have to be discussed at the meeting of the Council of Energy Ministers. It is only a proposal in the draft resolution. It calls for agreement in principle, but there will be a need for further discussion on how it will be implemented.
The fourth item is a proposal that the Commission should stimulate a study of ways of increasing electricity coal burn, and paragraph 3c of Com. (76)20 contains a number of proposed methods, including guarantees for new investments, and utilisation of the Community's loan capacity. We shall look at these proposals sympathetically.
The next item we should be discussing is the development of Community solidarity in the event of oil supply difficulties. This is essentially to bring the EEC into line with arrangements already agreed in the International Energy Agency and to avoid conflict with the provisions of the Treaty of Rome. France, which is not a member of the IEA, would be covered by any scheme adopted. These proposals have been extensively discussed in Brussels and are at present in a shape with which we are content.
The Commission has also come forward with plans for increasing support for technological development projects involving a proposal to increase the Community's budget for 1977 from 25 million units of account to 50 million units of account. We are reluctant to see an increase of this magnitude not only because of the implications for public expenditure, but because the technology development of proven off-shore fields is largely established and the need is to get them into production. We believe that it would be sensible to achieve results by projects supported in the first two allocations before going ahead with the third line of support.
We prefer to await an assessment, on the basis of the national energy plans of member States of the overall energy funding needs of the Community so that priorities can be established, rather than committing funds piecemeal from the EEC budget to oil and gas projects which may be less in need of EEC support than, say,

coal or nuclear programmes. We shall be prepared to discuss this proposal, but I thought it right to acquaint the House with our present thoughts on the proposal.
The Commission also suggests that there should be Community aid for exploration projects for oil and gas. The implication of the Commission proposal in late 1974 for giving financial support for oil and gas exploration in order to improve security of supply is that exploration is being or has been delayed by the lack of finance. This is not reflected in our own experience in the North Sea nor, as far as we can see, in other European countries with fewer resources.
The Commission has asked for evidence of the need for EEC subsidies and this evidence has not yet been forthcoming. We have doubts about subsidising oil companies to undertake activity which they would have undertaken in any event. Even if a Community subsidy encouraged exploration in deep and difficult waters, the technology for such exploration is in the early stages and the technology for producing oil from very deep waters does not exist.
To the extent that there may be a need for Community support, it is more for research and development programmes of deep-water exploration and production. But the oil companies themselves are carrying out development work in this area and we doubt whether any case can be made for subsidies. The right approach is to examine the overall energy funding needs of the Community on the basis of the energy programmes of member States and thereby to establish priorities, especially because of the constraints existing throughout the Community on levels of public financing.
The Commission has also suggested that there should be Community aid to increase the loans available for the financing of new nuclear capacity up to 500 million units of account. The Council of Finance Ministers discussed this proposal yesterday and there are still some technical matters to be considered. The matter will be considered further by the Council of Energy Ministers on March 25th. The Government think that the scheme is not likely to be of any major benefit to the United Kingdom, at least not in the short term.
The Commission is also proposing measures to encourage prospecting for uranium, and we think that this is sensible. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will deal with the siting of the proposed Joint European/Torus Fusion project when he winds up the debate. The matter was considered by the Research Council on 24th February.
The Government consider that the case for siting it at Culham is very strong, especially in view of Culham's experience in plasma physics, its work on Tokamak Engineering, its long experience in fusion work, the work of the design team, together with the fact that the Community has no scientific projects in the United Kingdom. I am in the happy position of being able to commend the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) and his hon. Friends, as well as the motion, because it underlines the importance of siting the project at Culham. Perhaps on that note of agreement I should sit down.

7.14 p.m.

Mr. John Biffen: I beg to move, to leave out from "R/253/76" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof
and further recognises the outstanding experience and facilities of the Culham Laboratory in the field of thermo-nuclear fusion, considers Culham to be the most appropriate location for the Joint European Torus, and calls on the Government to secure the choice of Culham as the research centre".
The Minister of State concluded his remarks by emphasising the measure of agreement in the House on these Documents. He spoke with realism as his theme and that is no bad guide in these matters.
I join with him in extending the area of agreement by saying how much we appreciate the preparatory work done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) and his Scrutiny Committee in bringing the Documents to the attention of the House. I appreciate that there are other diversions preventing the Secretary of State from being here for the debate. We had hoped that he would be here, because we all enjoyed our last debate on Community energy affairs. Nevertheless, we welcome the Minister of State. I do not know whether he will become the compaign manager for his Secretary of State in the next few days

and weeks, but at the moment we must look at these papers, which are of major significance to the House.
It is important that the House should make clear its view on some fairly profound principles contained within these Documents. The Select Committee on European Community Secondary Legislation under the chairmanship of Sir John Foster included a wide range of opinion, including the present Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection. The Committee commented in its Second Report:
time taken in the reference of a Community proposal to Parliament would probably be well spent, for it would be participation by the House of Commons in EEC legislation, not a mere sounding of opinion in Parliament, and it must surely be right that the House should participate at least to that extent.
As the Minister of State pointed out, there are two Documents before us. The first deals with the siting of the Joint European Torus and the second with general propositions of co-ordination of national policies in respect of the use of energy within the context of the Community and in relation to the International Energy Agency. I very much agree with the Minister in the emphasis he places on the rôle of the IEA. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton) will be happy to deal with the specific issue of the siting of the European Torus and the Minister of State properly said he would leave discussion of this matter to the Under-Secretary who is to reply.
I am delighted to be moving the amendment. It will not be lost on the Minister that it draws its inspiration from Early-Day Motion No. 195 and cannot be construed as showing hostility to EEC membership. The motion carries the names of the hon. Member for Gateshead West (Mr. Horam) and my hon. Friends the Members for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) and Cambridge (Mr. Lane). It has attracted a galaxy of talent of the friends of Europe. I am happy that there should be such a wide measure of assent for the amendment.
I wish to concentrate on Document No. R/210/76. There is no doubt that in energy matters we are in a position to play a distinctive and preponderant role in determining policy within the Community. I hope that two observations will command reasonably wide support—first, that any policy pursued in respect


of energy should be rooted in an acknowledgement of the underlying realities of politics and, secondly, that the EEC and the IEA should provide an institutional framework which utilises rather than frustrates national and political sentiment. We should be wise and constructive to record our own assessment of some of the political constraints operating in the United Kingdom whenever energy policy is discussed.
When I read the reports of the debate held in the European Parliament on 23rd September, I was fascinated by the contribution made by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). I told him that I should refer to him in the debate. He explained that he would be on the Continent and therefore unable to acknowledge the blandishments I am about to proffer. I am sure that he would be happy to stand by every word he said.
Speaking about the resources of the North Sea he said:
We have no intention of giving up, without qualification, control and ownership of our North Sea resources. The rate of extraction of the oil and the gas, and their disposal, will remain within the control of the United Kingdom Government. North Sea oil is a national resource and ought to be nationally owned, and we are not prepared readily to relinquish that to Europe. (Cries of 'Hear, hear').
He concluded:
I just want to issue these warnings as a good European.
I wish to speak a little more delicately on this issue. There is no doubt that the rate of depletion is a matter of general political concern in this country, and there is general anxiety that the downstream activities will provide a fair degree of employment in the United Kingdom. These are some of the underlying realities of oil politics in the United Kingdom, and their proclamation in the House will act as a guide for the Minister when he attends the Council meeting, and for the Commission, if it follows our proceedings. A proper regard for those considerations is in no sense inconsistent with—
the establishment of solidarity in the event of oil supply difficulties.
We need a liberal rather than a protectionist energy policy in respect of the EEC. Above all, we do not wish to build upon the philosophy of the common agricultural policy. I think it well to place

these sentiments on record, and I hope to have them endorsed by the Under-Secretary of State when he winds up the debate.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alex Eadie): The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alex Eadie) indicated assent.

Mr. Biffen: I see that the hon. Gentleman is nodding in agreement even at this early stage, and I am delighted to place that on record.
I come to what I believe will prove to be the heart of the debate other than the legitimate concern over the siting of the Joint European Torus, and that is the question of the minimum safeguard price. The proposed philosophy is contained in the Documents before us. In the draft resolution we are invited to approve:
the principle of the adoption by the Community of a system of minimum import prices for oil …come into play at a threshold of $7 per barrel fob for reference crude.
The subsequent reference to the Community's obtaining its own resources from the application of the system requires a little more elaboration. The Minister of State acknowledged that it was in the text, but did not reveal to us whether he thought it was a good idea. The House is entitled to hear more from the Treasury Bench on this matter.
The Scrutiny Committee was right to draw our attention to this above all else as being the reason why the House should debate this matter. The Committee's Report concluded:
The Committee consider that this instrument raises questions of importance relating to a wide range of energy matters; this is particularly so in the case of the third guideline mentioned in COM(76)20.
That is the minimum safeguard provision.
The House would do well to consider this topic under two propositions. The first is that the gesture is symbolic and is not meant to be much more than symbolic. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) has hinted that the French may not be at one with other members of the Community in this respect. Therefore, perhaps it should not be taken too seriously.
Perhaps it was a commitment to enable the Foreign Secretary to return with a negotiating triumph from Rome which he shared with Luxembourg, rather like the triumph of the Minister of Agriculture,


Fisheries and Food over the variable beef régime. It is something which seems to be eroded with the passage of time, and perhaps a good deal is conceded for what is not much more than a gesture. Therefore, a note of charitable scepticism is in order in this context because we have to test the gesture against some of the known realities.
Do we see evidence of the Germans resisting the blandishments of cheap coal from Poland? The answer is "Certainly not". There is documented evidence that if cheap energy is available in Eastern Europe, the Germans are perfectly prepared to buy in that market.
What would happen if there were a substantial fall in world energy prices which brought into play the mechanism of the $7 minimum safeguard price? I shall not enter into essentially fruitless speculation about whether OPEC pricing arrangements will be maintained. It is, none the less, legitimate to ask ourselves this question. I was much struck by the observations of Commissioner Simonet in the debate in the European Parliament on 23rd September 1975 in which the hon. Member for Fife, Central spoke. Commissioner Simonet said:
After all, it is not enough just to produce oil. When a product is made, there have to be people who want to buy it and if they are offered the same product at lower prices elsewhere it is quite possible that they will end up buying elsewhere, even if that means behaving in a deplorably un-European way.
I never thought the day would come when there would be a warm fellow feeling between myself and a member of the European Commission, but in that observation I see a commendable acknowledgment of reality. The Minister of State would be happy to have reality as the theme of his contribution—

Mr. Neil Marten: When my hon. Friend goes to the Commission, as he is bound to, will he refer that matter to Commissioner Lardinois and remind him that New Zealand butter is £300 a ton cheaper than Common Market butter and we should therefore import New Zealand butter?

Mr. Biffen: Happily, my responsibilities confine me to the Department of Energy, and it would be a gross act of imperialism if I sought to take a much wider-ranging interest, which is presented to me in a tempting form by my hon.

Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten). I shall not be drawn on that.
I ask the House to take the second proposition, which is that perhaps this gesture is for real. If it is of serious intent, we have already in embryo form the philosophy of a levy. It is a levy where the point of relationship will not necessarily be oil prices but the cost of production of marginal primary energy within the European Community. That is the inherent danger if the minimum safeguard price takes on a protectionist character, of which I believe it is susceptible.
What, then, would be the impact upon the European Community? I suggest that we might seriously lift our eyes from the small print—much of which is valuable and constructive—in this 600 grammes of Document R/210/76 and take a wider view. It seems to me that almost certainly it would have as a harmful and a very onerous consequence a burden upon Denmark, which, according to the Document, would rely upon imports for 98 per cent. of her primary energy by 1985, and Italy, which would rely upon imports for between 70 and 72 per cent. of her primary energy by 1985.
In other words, burdens would be placed upon two of the geographically peripheral members of the Community, and this would have as a consequence an intensification of those forces already operating within the Community which make it increasingly difficult to secure the harmonious resolution of national interests within the EEC. It would be one more point of intense irritation with central authority and central control, but I take the argument one stage further.
There has been extended by the Community a unanimous consent for intended Greek membership. There is a logic which is implicit in the extension of the Community geographically in that part of Europe. I think that logic is that there is reasonably in prospect a possibility of Turkish, Spanish and Portuguese membership also. Each and every one of those countries, according to the OECD report "Energy prospects for 1985", is at this point of time a major importer of primary energy, largely in respect of oil. In other words, we should find ourselves in a position where maybe the extension of Community membership in the direction


in which now seems intended would be frustrated by such a policy as this.

Mr. Douglas Jay: I agree with the arguments the hon. Gentleman is now advancing, but am I wrong in thinking that his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin), not many months ago was preaching from the Conservative Benches the desirability of the floor price? Has there been a welcome conversion to liberalism?

Mr. Biffen: No, my right hon. Friend on that occasion was putting forward a number of thoughts for consideration by the House, as I am now. Throughout these debates there has mercifully—indeed, predictably—been enough wisdom from these Benches not to be involved in a commitment in a situation which is naturally changing.
This is one reason why I welcomed the theme of realism which was contained in the remarks of the Minister of State, It is one reason why we should like to use this debate as a means of eliciting the reactions of the Treasury Bench. I am not putting the propositions to the House in a spirit of carping assertion, but saying that these are the kind of fundamental questions that ought properly to be debated in this House before a meeting takes place at the Council of Ministers. Indeed, it is the answer at the end of this debate which, it seems to me, is central to the whole success of such a debate, because the Treasury Bench will be revealing to the House its reactions to the very problems that I have been discussing.
I had not expected that so urbane and restrained a figure as the Minister of State would be the main actor in this evening's debate. I had thought that the Secretary of State might be here, but we all understand his absence. He has one political disadvantage: from time to time he gets infected with enthusiasm. Therefore, there was a very real anxiety lest the whole concept of the minimum safeguard price were seized upon by the Secretary of State with enthusiasm, whereas I am suggesting to the House that it merits very considerable scepticism.
I think that the greatest guarantee of a successful development of oil resources will be a flow of trade and investment which underpins the mutual dependence

of the industrial world and the OPEC countries, the kind of community which I believe it is in Britain's national interest that there should be—namely, an open door community. The House has a responsibility to give some sort of message to the Minister which he can take with him to the Council of Ministers' meeting in a few days' time.
First, I suggest that the House will wish to emphasise its support for mutual co-operation to overcome supply difficulties such as were experienced in the autumn of 1973. Secondly, I believe that the House will wish to underline arguments, which I am sure will be deployed by other speakers, about the virtues of Culham, which is rightly prized as a testimony to United Kingdom nuclear technology. Finally, I suggest that the House will be disposed to give the message to the Secretary of State, when he attends that Council of Ministers, to use his undoubted authority to secure a liberal energy policy and to avoid the protectionism of a common agricultural policy philosophy.

7.36 p.m.

Dr. Colin Phipps: I should like to take up the principal theme—if I can call it that—of the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), which I think is one of realism. I should like to look at the theme of realism in a specifically United Kingdom context, concerning the realities of our own position in regard to North Sea oil and our membership of the EEC.
It has become rather fashionable in recent months for even strong pro-Europeans, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), to say that we are very committed Europeans but it is our oil and it cannot be touched by others, despite the fact that we are so very committed to Europe. I do not take that view, first, on the general ground of my Europeanism, but also on the specific ground of the benefits which can accrue to this country from a properly co-ordinated European energy policy for North Sea oil.
It is important for us in the United Kingdom to consider some of the realities affecting North Sea oil. We have heard today that there is concern about depletion policy—that there should be elements of conservation within the depletion


policy which we use in the North Sea. Indeed, the Department of Energy has taken powers which allow a degree of conservation.
But hon. Members ought to appreciate that the North Sea is nothing like an oilfield developed somewhere on land. If a field is developed on land and 30 wells are needed to develop it, the wells can be drilled one by one wherever they are needed. It is possible for these wells to be closed in occasionally, if necessary, in the way in which this is done in the United States. But that is not the case in the North Sea, where a platform has to be put down, and where there is no point in putting down a platform unless it can support the drilling of between 20 and 30 wells. This means being faced with an overall commitment to the complete development immediately the decision to develop is taken. It is not, therefore, like developing a land field.
This means that the enormous capital expenditure has to be made right at the very beginning, and, having made that capital expenditure, with all the best depletion and conservation policies in the world, it is not then possible to say to the company concerned, or to BNOC, "Having funded this vast capital expenditure, we shall not allow you to produce the oil at a rate which will allow you to cover the cost". We are living in cloud-cuckoo-land if we believe that we can run North Sea oil in this way. Once we have developed these massive installations, they will have to produce at full capacity.
If we are to produce the oil at full capacity in the North Sea, a number of other matters arise. The nature of North Sea oil is such that it does not match the product spread which is used in the United Kingdom, from heating oil right up to very light products. We use a preponderance of heavy products in the United Kingdom but slightly less of a preponderance since we have been cutting back and since the "Save It" campaign began. However, the principal reason for using slightly less is the two very mild winters which we have recently experienced. If we have a hard winter we shall revert to using a large percentage of heavy products. Even under the current spread of products, North Sea oil is not a suitable input

crude for producing the product mix which we use, and we shall have a light fraction left over.
It has already been mooted on several occasions that it might be sensible for us to continue to import medium-heavy crude from Kuwait relatively cheaply and either to export our own lighter crudes which are premium crudes on the market and which attract a higher price or perhaps to export products. I emphasise that since we must produce the oil once the installations have been erected in order that the economics make sense, we shall be faced with a surplus willy-nilly. Where will that surplus go? There is only one place where it can go to make any sense—and that is to Europe.
When looking at the minimum support price, we should consider much more seriously the realities of making the European self-interest our self-interest. It is in our self-interest to produce this oil and to keep the price up. The Minister of State has said that the price of seven dollars would be sufficient to allow the present developments to be developed profitably. I assure him that it would not be sufficient to allow some of the newer fields to be developed. As a nation we wish to develop these fields. I suggest that the obvious course is to involve the European countries in the development of those fields. We should make this a European question, a European balance of payments question and a European oil and energy security question by involving the European countries directly in the investment that will be required to produce the oil from the fields which we are now discovering and which we shall continue to discover.
I suggest that there is no better minimum selling price or way of achieving a minimum price than by ensuring that our European colleagues have as much self-interest as we have in seeing the oil produced and sold within Europe. I believe that that is the way we should be going within Europe, as a member of the Community. It is in our self-interest so to do. It is essential realism to see that it is the proper way to go. It is in the EEC's self-interest and certainly fulfils the requirements set out in the document before us.
I commend to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that when he or his


right hon. Friend next goes to the EEC, this is the policy that should be propounded and that we should try to get a complete commitment to United Kingdom oil by the European countries. We have been described as the poor man of Europe. I believe that in this instance we could be in the position of a poor man bearing gifts.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. John Davies: The hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps) has introduced a strong note of realism to the debate. His arguments are largely impeccable, and arguments which I would share. Therefore I shall not repeat what he has said but get on with that part of my speech with which he has not dealt.
I should like to concentrate primarily on Document R/210/76, which is extremely important. When I look back over our period of membership of the Community I conclude that during our three years of experience the Community has not cut a proud figure in energy terms. It has often come up to the beginnings of an understanding of its problems but generally has managed to back away for some purely illusory reason.
This Document is important because it is produced in response to a request by the European Council. It sets out a series of rather practical measures to try to attack a major problem. Equally, it also seems to have discarded many theoretical myths and to have attached itself to practical propositions. Therefore, this Document has my support and. I hope, the support of the House. Of course, there is much in it that will need refinement and elaboration, but we must view the Document against a background where the problems of the future have, to a large degree, been relegated to a second level of consideration while political square-dancing has taken place in the Council of Ministers, defending the theoretical positions of the individual countries. It is good to see that phase over.
The primary purpose of the Document is, first, to limit import dependence to the limit possible and, second, to achieve valid degrees of energy economy. I am grateful for the freedom which was accorded by my hon. Friend

the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) when he sought to express his personal view without undue attachment to the details of consensus of thought, whilst no doubt broadly speaking in the same general direction.
The importance of the limitation of import dependence is an absolute fundamental need of the Community. I do not have the same dispute with the common agricultural policy as some people have. In my view two essentials of life are food and heat. One of the problems which the European Continent must face is the insurance, for the long term, of its food supplies in an uncertain world in terms of food production and food consumption. Therefore, I applaud an arrangement which has, as its basic purpose at least, that very intention, although there may be peripheral details which we could dispute.
As regards energy, there is no chauvinistic intent behind a desire to try to secure the maximum indigenous dependence. It is not there in order to offer an obstruction to liberal trade or to those who wish to export their products to the Continent. Far from it. It is there to exploit to the maximum the resources and the facilities of the Community, which is surely the purpose for which we joined and the purpose which we should now support. I cannot see that it represents an illiberal attitude of mind to the major producers of energy world-wide. They, too, are greatly perplexed. They face enormous dilemmas whether it is wise to move to higher and higher levels of production, perhaps against the optimum exploitation of their fields, and whether it is wise to realise their greatest natural resource at a high immediate rate or to defer the realisation of it until perhaps, as against many of the preoccupations that have been expressed here this evening, the oil price rises much further. Therefore, their problem is not necessarily one in which they see any effort by the Community to secure a greater self-dependence as a threat for themselves.
It seems only fair to discover what steps are needed to secure a greater degree of self-dependence. That, however, exposes the most enormous problems for the Community. The Minister said that the target of 40 per cent. dependence on external sources by 1985 had been abandoned as


unrealistic. But to achieve a 50 per cent. reliance on indigenous resources would require the Community to undertake some quite fantastic operations. On the basis of aggregating individual member countries' estimates, which I believe may be a substantial underestimate, the 1974 level of 950,000 tons of oil equivalent would rise to 1,200 million tons of oil equivalent by 1980, and to 1,400 million tons of oil equivalent by 1985. That means that to reduce our external dependence from the present 60 per cent. to 50 per cent. would require increased oil production in the Community from the current level of 12 million to 15 million tons to about 150 million tons, with all the enormous investment that would require.
According to the Commission's view of the matter, it would require an increase in nuclear energy capability from about 14 million tons of oil equivalent to about 200 million tons of oil equivalent by 1985. The implications of that for research, for developing adequate uranium supplies, for reprocessing capabilities, for enrichment capabilities for existing types of plant, for mastering the technology and for bringing on stream generating plants to the extent needed are a fantastic demand on the resources, the effort and the research capability of all the member countries. We are talking therefore, even within this relatively modest shift in the balance of dependance, of a formidable programme by any standard for the Community. That 10 per cent. shift is a threat to no one and it cannot be construed as such. It involves procuring for investment sums of the order of 22 billion units of account between now and 1985. That is a problem which should not be left to individual countries.
Against that must be considered that in the longer term alternative and non-conventional sources of energy may be of some help, but they are far from making any significant contribution to our total energy needs. We cannot rely upon solar systems, tidal systems, or deep-sea wave systems to provide any significant mitigation of the figures I have given.
Economies in the use of fuel have been valuable in the last couple of years, but in Community terms their benefit tends to be illusionary. They resulted first from the shock effect of a large price increase, but that is diminishing as time passes.

Community papers show that the overall energy pricing system between 1970 and 1975 did little more than keep pace with other regular price developments in the Community. We are not therefore faced with an on-going pricing system which will act as a continuing deterrent. In addition there have been two warm winters and the deepest recession this Continent has experienced since the war—and perhaps ever in real terms.
On a reasonably practical view it is likely that between now and 1985 the rate of energy absorption in Europe will return to a relatively high level in terms of its normal gearing against the development of gross national products. We would therefore be fooling ourselves if we imagined that there would be any enormous benefit from economies. They will make a valid but not a big contribution to solving the problem.
Community interests demand common action. The Community faces in this subject the biggest single challenge to its industrialisation—bigger than the challenge over aircraft or shipbuilding. If we are serious in seeking harmonisation of the varying conditions in the different parts of the Community, it is unrealistic to believe that these solutions can be achieved by national initiative. The poorer countries would inevitably find themselves left seriously behind in the race and would then face enormous technology purchase requirements in order to make good their own energy deficiencies.
Britain's quite exceptional situation on energy in the Community presents a choice. We could take the risk of saying that we shall hold back from the Community, that we shall accept the principle of no obstacles to the movement of goods and trade in everything except oil, and that we shall claw back oil to ourselves hoping for the day when crisis strikes and our oil will enable us to make a killing in the Community. May I suggest that that is not much in our character, and that was not our purpose in joining the Community. I hope that we shall not take that view. We have to give and take in the Community. One of the things we can give is the access to our quite remarkable and unique energy capability which will be of enormous importance to the future of our Continent. I deeply hope that we shall

7.59 p.m.

Mr. Albert Roberts: I am glad that the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) referred to harmony within the Community. Many of us have been trying to achieve some harmony on energy policy in Britain. Over the last 20 years I have heard that theory expounded, but we have never secured the results we have wanted.
I must declare my interest in the mining industry. Civilisation depends upon energy. Without energy there is no civilisation. This country has an abundance of the material which makes energy. Of course, we have our problems too.
Reference has been made to Polish coal and the dangers of over-production. It is said that we require production guarantees as well as price guarantees. We must give consideration to these matters as they are of especial importance.
I hope that we can achieve harmony within the coal industry. We must remember that the coal industries in France and Belgium are being run down. The coal industries within Great Britain and West Germany are, to some extent, being expanded. That is to offset the decline in France and Belgium.
If Britain can take the right sort of initiative and obtain the right sort of guarantees, we can produce the coal. However, unless action is taken within the near future, I am afraid that we shall have some unemployment in the mining industry. We are stocking coal at a rapid rate, and the miners in some of the less abundant fields are very anxious. At the same time, we are contemplating spending millions of pounds on the development of the Selby coalfield.
There is no doubt that the miner at the coalface is becoming an expert technician. We cannot throw these people aside and then bring them back into the industry later and expect to get immediate production. The consumption of coal by the power stations continues at quite a high level but it has not been possible to obtain a guarantee from the Chairman of the CEGB.
I know that the electricity industry has its worries. It takes the view that it must have the cheapest fuel. The miners take the view that if they produce the coal, there should be long-term guarantees. We must be prepared to give those

guarantees. The coal is being produced and the power stations are taking it, and we must ensure that the pits keep going. If we are to produce the coal, there must be guarantees within the Common Market. We must have some guarantee of sales within Western Europe.
I take exception to what has been said about cheap Polish coal. I do not say that the Polish coalminer will not be paid an equitable rate, but we know perfectly well that the coal he produces will be subsidised. That arrangement must be opposed if we intend to keep our own men at work. We must provide the right conditions and wages. That means that coal must be sold at the right price.
I have often said that industry requires a cheap fuel if it is to be competitive. If we can provide only expensive fuels, our industry will be uncompetitive. However, we do not want cheap fuel and cheap miners. We can obtain cheap fuel by concentrating on increased efficiency. We must have the full cooperation of the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers.
At present the EEC is importing about 61 per cent. of its energy requirements. That is far too high a level of imports. It is hoped to reduce it within the next 10 years to about 50 per cent., but that is too slow a rate of reduction.
If we intend the Common Market to be a world force—and it could do a tremendous amount of good in other parts of the world—we need a cheap energy. We can supply that energy, thus reducing unemployment. I do not believe that we are undertaking sufficient research. Are we as progressive in our approach to research as the South Africans, who have undertaken considerable research into the production of oil from coal?
I appreciate that we have spent millions of pounds in other areas of research but I should like to see more being done in energy research. I know that we can produce oil but it is expensive. There is no reason for money to be poured into research with no consideration being given to the benefits that may accrue, but I am given to understand from the papers I have read that South Africa is more advanced in some respects in its energy research than Great Britain is.
I hope that we shall be able to take advantage of anything that we can gain from the South Africans. I have no bias on that score. It is essential that we bear in mind what is taking place in other parts of the world if we intend to keep in the vanguard of progress.
We can play a tremendous part in the Common Market's energy policy. I know that there are those who vilify the Common Market, but now we are a member State we must make every effort to make progress within it. I insist that if we produce the coal from our fields, there must be some guarantee from Europe that the Community will not take the coal produced in Poland.
A section of the draft resolution reads:
The minimum possible degree of dependence by the Community on imported energy remains a fundamental and permanent objective of the Community energy policy".
We must allow a little time, but there is no reason for our not achieving a watertight energy policy within the next 10 years. I hope that every effort will be made in that direction with those connected with the energy industries.
I have been a Member since 1951 and on many occasions I have read and heard about energy policies coming under one umbrella. So far we have failed to achieve that objective. Successive Governments have failed. I do not blame one Government more than another. The fact is that we have never had a concerted energy policy.
I remember the millions of pounds that were poured into nuclear energy. I remember those who walked into the Chamber 20 years ago and said that nuclear energy would be the salvation of the human race. They said within a few decades we should be using nothing but electricity derived from nuclear energy. Look where we are today. Nothing of the sort has happened. I feel that there are far better hopes for the research now being undertaken. Our salvation does not depend on nuclear energy alone. It will play a part, but only a small part.
The right hon. Member for Knutsford spoke about oil. I know that his knowledge of oil far exceeds mine. There were those who used to talk of taking up the slack in the coalmining industry. They said that what coal could not do, oil

could deliver. But what has happened within the past 18 months or two years? Britain took advantage of cheap oil and neglected other sources of energy.
I hope that it will be realised that now we are in the Common Market we must have a common energy policy. The workers in the energy industries must be told exactly what the situation is. If we intend to develop technology inside the mines and to keep our young men coming into the mines, we have to guarantee them a future. My hon. Friend the Minister of State spoke about oil and said that when we started to produce it at maximum capacity, there must be a market for it and there must be a price for it. This is exactly the situation applying to coal.
There is a great deal of unanimity in the Chamber on this subject. I hope that a real energy policy can be worked out in the interests of not only Western Europe, but the whole world.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. John Hannam: The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. Roberts) spoke with great experience and knowledge of the coal industry and of the vital importance of coal in the triangle of energy supply that this country has. I agree very much with many of his points. I agree especially about the need to spend very much more on research in the coal industry, principally on the development of the production of oil from coal, mechanised methods of extraction, fluidised combustion, and other very important new systems which could be developed to the country's great advantage.
This is a very important and wide-ranging debate, and we are grateful to the Select Committee for recommending that these EEC Documents should be debated on the Floor of the House. Our attention today has been somewhat distracted. Nevertheless the scope of Document R/210/76 pulls us back to the realities of the energy situation. This is so important that the House needed time to be made available for a discussion of the proposals.
I want first briefly to deal with the Joint Torus proposal which is dealt with in Document R/253/76. As a supporter of the European concept of sharing the costs of the higher technology involved now in nuclear power, obviously I accept a Community


decision if it is the correct decision.
The proposal to select Ispra as the site for the JET project stands up as long as we do not place high priority on the availability of scientific expertise in fusion and plasma physics. Yet, if this important thermal fusion nuclear research programme is to be successful and if we are to retain our lead over Russia and the United States, I believe that the experience in plasma physics that we possess at Culham is as important as the social and financial grounds on which the Community decision seems to have been based.
Culham appears to be the best site from the point of view of the team of scientists that we have established there, and the Document confirms that there will be some savings of costs in this respect since otherwise they will have to be moved from this country to whatever site in Europe is selected. I am convinced from the announcement made by the Minister that the Government will maintain their pressure to establish this research programme at Culham.
This is especially important now that we have precipitately withdrawn from the Dragon project at Winfrith. I think that that decision was a mistake. We are still standing at a nuclear crossroads in Britain, and to abandon at this stage the prospects of high-temperature gas-cooled nuclear reactors when there is increasing evidence from outside this country—from the world as a whole—of interest developing once again in these high-temperature reactors, seems to be a mistake. The costs of the Dragon project were not very large, being shared with the Germans. If we find ourselves running into problems in the not-too-distant future with our SGHWR programme, and if the light-water reactors are not available for safety or financial reasons, we could find ourselves facing a serious nuclear power shortage in the late 1980s and 1990s.
I do not hide the fact that I did not favour completely the choice of the heavy-water reactor as our sole "banker" for the medium-term nuclear prospects. I should have preferred a mixed programme and a larger programme than the 4,000 megawatts that we have embarked upon. From all the current evidence brought out in the Community Documents, we are facing delays in producing

nuclear energy throughout Europe and in this country. We are facing a delay in making this jump from the 100 mW prototype at Winfrith to the 10 times larger reactors at Sizewell and Torness.
If we were in a position to be ordering a fast-breeder reactor at the moment, I should be quite happy that our construction industry would be able to gear up and prepare itself for a long-term nuclear programme. But no indication of such an order is yet in sight.
However, the medium-term nuclear situation bothers me. I fear that Britain could in the 1980s be lagging behind our rivals in the production of cheaper nuclear power. If that happened and if we had snags and delays in the SGHWR programme, basic electricity costs in this country could be substantially higher than in other European countries which have gone in for bigger nuclear programmes. It is important to think in terms of basic industrial costs in the battle to regain industrial productivity in the future.
At the moment, we lie second behind the United States in our use of nuclear power. By the mid-1980s, we shall have dropped to fifth or sixth place with our present programme. It should also be realised that a substantial amount of our nuclear capacity would be, from a technological point of view, becoming largely obsolete. The Magnox reactors and the AGRs will be bearing the brunt of our nuclear production, and they cannot possibly be considered as longer-term candidates for future construction programmes for the late 1980s and 1990s.
As the technical construction problems of the AGRs are being overcome, gas-cooled technology may come back into its own as a possible mid-term forerunner to the fast breeder. Certainly, the Germans, the Americans and the Japanese are showing increasing evidence of their interest in high-temperature gas-cooled reactors, and they are showing all the indications that this type of reactor will obtain a fair share of the world's nuclear market in the 1990s.
We cannot be specific or make forecasts. This is an area of activity in which, from day to day, we find new evidence coming to light about nuclear development. But I am not optimistic that our SGHWR will be a world seller,


though now that we are on that road I wish it every success in the United Kingdom. I hope that the Minister will tell us a little about this project and give us the latest state of play on the nuclear front.
I believe in a multi-energy policy for the United Kingdom. We are extremely fortunate to have an abundance of coal, a lot of gas and a massive field of oil under the North Sea. But there are limitations on the amount of coal that we can produce each year, our gas supplies will last 10 or 15 years, and our oil will peak out in the early 1980s. If we achieve just half of the Government's White Paper "guesstimate" of our growth in the next few years and average just 2 per cent. expansion per year, demand will obviously be increasing again and consumption of energy will be increasing so that in the year 2000 we shall require 75,000 mW of electricity capacity, which is 50 per cent. more than we have now. Furthermore, a great deal of our existing plant will need to be replaced. Therefore, even at this low growth rate of only 2 per cent. a year, we shall need to build some 50,000 mW total energy capacity in the period between 1985 and the year 2000. Of this, about 50 per cent. might be considered to be nuclear power. Therefore, we shall be talking in terms of providing 25,000 mW of nuclear power. But on what system or systems shall we provide that type of nuclear capacity?
We can see that some clear-cut political, commercial, and economic decisions will have to be made in that area alone. A sound project and construction management team will need to be built up. It is in this context that the EEC Document is important. It is trying to instil a sense of urgency into member States to begin to build up this type of expertise, research construction teams and collaboration in an attempt to achieve what seems an unattainable objective.
The potential for solving the medium-term financing and development problems of nuclear power must lie in European collaboration. My right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) underlined the fact that it is important that in this area we look to the future of the Community. The proposals for Euratom loans for financing nuclear installations, the need to maintain joint

research projects, such as Dragon and Jet, are vital if we are not to find ourselves left far behind 15 years from now with our industrial energy costs higher than those of our competitors. The latest forecasts of uranium shortages make it all the more important to finance uranium exloration in the Community.
I have dealt in some depth with the nuclear situation, because it is put on one side from our discussions about oil and coal, which are the other two important legs of our energy stool. I recognise, as the Commission makes clear that it recognises, that it is impossible to forecast accurately the absolute energy requirements of the Community in 10 to 15 years, but the general parameters of demand can be estimated. These point to a resumption of increased energy consumption as Western economies begin to pick up in a year or two years. Therefore, I accept in general terms the Commission's proposals on nuclear matters and objectives.
However, as a nation which unfortunately seems hell-bent on pricing its energy resources to the limit—some fraction below Middle East or OPEC oil prices—we must pay some regard to the consequences of a sudden lowering of world oil prices. I do not believe, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) indicated he did not believe, that there will be such a dramatic drop which will affect the situation. But I am convinced that the price of oil in real terms in the short term will steadily fall, especially if demand does not pick up during the next year or two years. Therefore, our inflation rate is important if we are not to find ourselves producing coal and oil at too high a cost in relative world terms.
If, under the International Energy Agency, we find ourselves agreeing to a lower limit on oil prices, so much the better. But I share the healthy scepticism displayed by my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry in saying that I do not see it working effectively if, for example, Russia and Saudi Arabia start to offload oil at a low price to energy hungry countries such as Japan.
A Community pricing structure might have a better chance of working, although in the end we should set out to conserve our resources as much as possible whilst producing coal, oil, gas and other energy


sources at a good competitive cost rather than relying on artificial pricing stratagems.
The Commission's proposals for support for coal stocking are to be welcomed. I share the worries and fears expressed by hon. Members representing coalmining constituencies, but I believe that this is a sound policy to adopt at this recessionary time. We must prepared for the growth and expansion of coal demand through the growth of our economy in future. The expense is large, and any help that the Community can give towards coal stocking is to be welcomed.
I hope that the coal industry, which I fully support as one of the three legs of our energy stool, will produce a successful productivity deal this year. It was much regretted that the last deal fell through. It is essential that coal should retain its price edge over other fuels. But, in any foreseeable event, we must accept that the output of coal will not watch in an expanding economy the generating demand which will be made. We must look at the picture as a whole.
Gas is another valuable resource which will continue to be found in increasing quantities around this island of ours. There is some controversy over the low price of the gas being provided under the original Southern Basin contracts. I agree that it is not in British interests to make the same mistake as the Americans and the Dutch have made in under-pricing gas to such an extent that we use up our limited resources too quickly.
Having said that, I am also against establishing artificial thermal heat pricing levels by taxation or other methods. I would support a rise in the price of gas of lp a therm, which would allow the British Gas Corporation to achieve a 4 per cent. return on turnover and give the industry an opportunity to be financially viable to a certain extent. But I would not support a VAT or other tax which would not benefit the industry and, indeed, would add to the cost of living without helping the Gas Corporation to achieve a reasonable return on its activities.
Finally, I turn briefly to energy conservation. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) is expert on these matters and has consistently

pressed the Government to adopt a real and effective strategy for energy saving rather than the half-effective "Save it" campaign which, if it had not coincided with a downturn in demand, would not have produced the results to justify the expense of the campaign.
We have lost time in failing to carry out research into energy conservation—insulation, solar heat, the use of methane, wind and wave power and district heating. Only now are we beginning to get pressure building up to spend more on research in these areas.
I welcome the Commission's recommendations on these conservation matters, especially with regard to the thermal insulation of buildings. I am positive that we are not doing enough to improve insulation in existing buildings or in the construction of new buildings.
I opened a new housing estate in my constituency last weekend. I asked the site manager what heat saving insulation improvements had been incorporated in these new houses. There was a frighteningly blank look on his face. It was obvious that, in keeping construction costs down to a level which would allow first-time buyers to purchase these houses, insulation and thermal efficiency had literally, like the heat, gone out of the window. It reminded me of a poster I saw recently in an electricity showroom which said
If your wife is being killed by work Let electricity do it.
That is the kind of contradiction in terms that one can see in the whole of the insulation system. When householders get some of these bills for increased electricity and fuel costs, they will be literally frightened to death. We must accept higher energy costs, but, as a nation, we shall be mad if we do not pursue the maximum research and development of energy saving measures, such as in the construction of new houses.
I welcome the impetus which the Documents give to our thinking and actions on energy. I reject the proposal to site the Joint Torus project at Ispra. I am confident that the Government will stick to their guns on this matter and will stick to Culham as the site for this proposal.
I hope that the Minister will respond to some of the points that I have made


concerning our medium-term nuclear programme. I am worried about this programme and its development. I hope that he will be able to enlighten the House on some of the latest developments in our reactor programme.
I welcome the proposals on collaborative financing of research and for coal stocks, and I hope that the House will share that view.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. Frank Hooley: The hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) put his finger on the significance of these Documents when he said, in effect, that the thinking behind them is virtually a replica of the philosophy of the common agricultural policy, that the techniques and ideas proposed are a close parallel to that disastrous policy, which even the most enthusiastic Europeans are now beginning to call in question.
Annex 1 lays it down as an essential principle that
… the minimum possible dependence by the Community on imported energy remains a fundamental and permanent objective of Community energy policy.
In other words, we have the same autarchist and mercantilist attitude on energy which has given us the CAP. If we accept it without question and examination there is a danger that we shall head for the same difficulties that we have already had with agriculture.
The key to this fundamental permanent objective is set out on the next page through the idea of a minimum import price for oil. By this means, if, by any disaster, energy supplies in the rest of the world become cheap and plentiful, we shall safeguard ourselves by keeping out supplies from elsewhere. Just as now that world food prices are well below Community prices, the policy forbids us to import beef, butter and other commodities from efficient and long-standing producers, so this Document suggests that we should be careful not to import cheap and plentiful supplies of oil if they should become available, as they may in the next few years. Import levies will be imposed to bring the price of outside supplies up to the highest price for supplies from internal sources.
The purpose of these levies will not be merely to prevent the Community from importing cheap and abundant oil from

elsewhere if that is the trend of world production. It will also
…enable the Community to obtain own resources from the application of the system".
In other words, the Commission is shrewdly moving along the lines that it has laid down to get within its own grasp and control important sources of funds which it can no doubt deploy for its future social or political objectives.
The hon. Member for Oswestry is right to draw attention to the possible dangers of this policy and to warn the Government against accepting it.

Dr. Phipps: I do not want to dampen my hon. Friend's free trade ardour, but if we could apply the levy support for oil solely in the United Kingdom as opposed to applying it within the whole of the EEC, would he regard that as sensible? If it were sensible for this country, why would it not be sensible for the EEC?

Mr. Hooley: We have in the past taxed oil to suit our own internal economy—in particular, to try to protect coal—but the product of that taxation came to the British Exchequer and benefited the British taxpayer. It was not handed over to a central European bureaucracy for it to deal with. I agree that taxation existed, but its purpose was not to keep our cheap and abundant supplies from the world market but to raise revenues for our internal social purposes. That is a very different kettle of fish.

Dr. Phipps: But that is not the situation now.

Mr. Hooley: No.

Dr. Phipps: Now, we as a country will soon be producing expensive oil. Would my hon. Friend therefore support our not producting our expensive oil but instead importing cheap oil?

Mr. Hooley: We shall have to see how prices vary. We have in the past, I agree, pursued a policy of subsidising coal production when it suited us for internal purposes. There is no reason why we should not do that on a limited scale for oil.
However, if we accept that on a European basis we shall drift into exactly the same position as we are in as regards


agriculture. We shall find ourselves discriminating against abundant and possibly cheaper sources of power from the rest of the world in order to maintain an artificial fuel economy within the Community at large. That is exactly how the CAP has developed and the principles of these documents are identical.

Mr. Rost: Will the hon. Gentleman apply his argument in the context of the British coal industry and therefore argue that, if necessary, that industry should no longer be supported in an artificial way? Could it survive in those circumstances?

Mr. Hooley: Up to a certain point we have supported the coal industry by subsidy controls and by taxation on oil. That taxation accrued to our Treasury and was redeployed for the benefit of our people. It was not handed over to a central bureaucracy for its purposes, which is quite a different matter.

Dr. Phipps: Are its purposes not for the people of Europe?

Mr. Hooley: They may or may not be. I do not believe that the CAP is proving that.
The other problem is that this policy is not likely to benefit the consumer. As the Document frankly points out, the workings of the minimum import price mechanism—assuming it comes into effect—would pass on to the consumer the burden of protection if the price of imported oil was to fall drastically. In other words, we should have a parallel situation to that of agriculture where the consumer would be compelled to pay continually a high energy prices, whatever the general level of prices in the world. The Document continues in the same vein to advocate an intervention system for coal. It says:
The Commission considers that the Community should allocate annually a maximum sum of 50 million u.a."—
—about £30 million——
for intervention purposes.
There again, we could face the danger, which is already partly apparent, that we could have an intervention system under which surpluses of coal were continuously built up, not because they were required on any rational fuel policy within the Community, but simply because the inter-

vention system had been established, had got out of hand and the vested interests therein were too powerful to prevent it from being reversed. That is exactly what has happened as regards dairy products. In other words, this Document proposes a high-cost energy system on top of a high cost food system.
We should carefully examine whether we want this pattern of energy pricing within the Community to be imposed on this country. The hon. Member for Oswestry said it was a gesture and that it was symbolic. There is some force in that because for the moment the world price of oil is above the price of the import levy price suggested in this Document. However, we do not know how these prices will vary. We could easily find ourselves in very much the same position as we are now in as regards agriculture and food products.
In terms of investment the Document lays out certain proportions which it considers should be applied to different types of fuel. It suggests a 5 per cent. investment for coal, a 27 per cent. investment in nuclear power and a 35 per cent. investment in oil and gas. I am not sure that those would be the proportions that this country would wish to spend. After all, we are extremely rich in coal, oil and gas and it may be that in the shorter term a better policy would be to exploit those resources than to spend enormous sums on the development of nuclear power. That is a matter that the Government should examine very carefully before getting lost in the obsessive approach of the Commission to the possibilities of nuclear power.
The essence of the Commission's thinking is clearly that it wants the Community to be totally independent, or as independent as it possibly can be, and the Commission sees a short cut to that in a massive nuclear programme. The nuclear programme is coming under increasing attack on environmental and other grounds, not merely in Britain but in the United States and elsewhere. We should be somewhat wary of committing ourselves entirely in that direction.
That brings me on to the other Document and the question of the fusion work and whether it should be based on Culsham, Ispra, or elsewhere. It seems to be a matter of common sense that in this


field it would not be reasonable for Britain to try to go it alone and that a co-operative programme with other Western European countries is sensible and, in fact, indispensable if we want to go for energy from this source. Therefore, I have no objection in principle to the idea of collaborative work through the European Community on power from fusion.
However, this gives rise to questions, which the Government should consider, as to what our programme should be in the overall field of nuclear power. After all, we have the Magnox stations. We have the AGR reactors. We have committed ourselves to the heavy-water reactors. There is also, way up in the North, the fast-breeder reactor. Are we to add to our commitments—admittedly joint commitments with other countries—a highly expensive and very uncertain fusion programme, in addition to all these other different types of nuclear power producers?
If the Government want to go for the fusion programme because they consider it sensible, I should have thought that there was a good case for considering whether, in addition, they need to persist with the fast-breeder reactor, which is coming in for increasing criticism on safety and scientific grounds. We have three systems already—Magnox, AGR and SGHWR. We are looking at the long term, and I understand that it could be at least three decades before we get an effective power system from fusion. Is it sensible to have yet another system, the fast breeder, which will clearly cost a great deal in terms of energy, manpower and so on?
I should have thought that the argument about the siting of the Joint European Torus was a good opportunity for us to take stock of our different nuclear systems and to see whether some slight rationalisation of what we are doing is possible. In that sense this Document is useful to the House and it has been useful to debate it. However, I remain of the view that in many of these highly technical matters relating to energy and different energy sources, the House would be well advised either to create a specific committee to study them in more depth than can be done in a single evening's debate or to refer some of the matters which are arising to the excellent Com-

mittee that already exists—the Select Committee on Science and Technology.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: This has been an interesting debate, conducted in a thoughtful way. Since we are dealing with matters related to the EEC, I cannot take a distinctively Scottish line on the tug of war which is taking place between Italy and England.
There are two benefits that flow from research projects of this kind. The first relates to research activities, the work they create and the advantages that accrue to communities in areas in which those activities are housed. It has been said that there is no major EEC research centre within the United Kingdom. The second benefit flows from the fact that the results of any research will be of advantage to those who fund the research.
I have examined the list of pluses and minuses of the various sites which have been proposed. On first reading it would appear that the Italian site produces the best factors. I take the point that the existence of research workers specialising in this technology is an important matter. However, our experience in Scotland is that, unless a sufficient amount of research is carried out, there is a danger of a brain drain. That brain drain could occur on a European basis and affect England in the same way as Scotland has been adversely affected in many ways in the past.
We must be careful about the danger of centralisation of research within the Common Market. The prospect of centralisation was a major factor that affected many people's mind at the pre-referendum debate and indeed it caused them to regard the activities of the Common Market with some suspicion.
In examining the siting of the new research project, it is important to realise that the research capability will be important for the EEC and for the world. Some hon. Members have mentioned the energy gap that could occur by the end of the century. The worry is that existing construction of nuclear reactors in the United Kingdom could be outdated or obsolescent by the time other kinds of reactors are available. If a country has built up a nuclear-generating capacity on the basis of existing technology and misses out on the next stage of development, it is


no easy matter in terms of development to meet the exist of replacing that technology.
It is interesting to note that in the targets set for the consumption of electricity produced by nuclear generation Scotland will be high up in the league. The situation in Scotland will be different from that in England.
We see from Document R210/76 that by 1985 it is estimated that 60 per cent. of electricity generated in Belgium will be produced by nuclear means. In France and Luxembourg the figure could be as high as 70 per cent., in Germany and Italy 40 to 45 per cent., and in the United Kingdom, Denmark and the Netherlands 25 per cent. That United Kingdom figure of 25 per cent. has a high Scottish content.
The plans of the South of Scotland Electricity Board and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board show that there is to be a great increase in capacity. At 31st March last year the installed megawatt capacity of those boards came to a total of 8,263, but the ultimate capacity envisaged by 1985, allowing for completion time, will give a megawatt capacity of 18,163. That would take in the full 5,280 MW capacity envisaged at Torness. It seems that Scotland will move ahead substantially in nuclear generation and that if one adds Hunterston C to the Torness project, we shall have a capacity of 20,803 megawatts by the late 1980s, to be set against the figure of 38 per cent. of estimated growth in consumption over that period.
The figures are interesting. They will take Scotland into the European league in terms of percentage production by nuclear means. But that also must be set against the fact that Scotland has alternative sources of fuel, although some of that would not be suitable. Oil, for instance, is not suitable for burning in power stations. When looking at envisaged investment in existing nuclear technology one must question whether we might be going for over-production and perhaps resting our production on obsolescent technology if the other forms of energy mentioned in the debate today become available.
It is a difficult problem, because as energy becomes available more cheaply than that produced by existing nuclear

reactors, we could end up in the unfortunate situation of over-expensive production. There should, therefore, be some scrutiny of the energy policies of the South of Scotland Electricity Board and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board. I am sorry that no Scottish Minister is present in the Chamber. Although two of the Ministers are of Scottish extraction, they do not have responsibility for the generating policies of the South of Scotland Electricity Board and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board.
One of the factors which must be taken into account when dealing with nuclear generation was referred to by the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) when he spoke of the future scarcity of uranium supplies. The point was made very timeously is an article in The Times today. Nevertheless, unless one can make better use of uranium than at present, one must regard it as a finite fuel. One hopes that breeder reactors and methods of fusion will develop so that our supplies of fuels for nuclear generation can be used more effectively.
The EEC Commission deserves to be congratulated on its proposals to encourage exploration for further supplies of uranium in Europe. Hon. Members from Scottish constituencies will know that low-grade ores have been discovered in Orkney and Caithness, but at present they are not worth exploiting. As uranium becomes progressively more expensive, these deposits could be a useful stop-gap.
The subject of energy saving is also mentioned in the Commission Documents. Much common sense is talked about the need for thermal insulation. Hon. Members will be aware of complaints from their constituents who live in modern houses, particularly local authority houses, which have poor insulation.
I receive many complaints about condensation, or, as my constituents prefer to call it, dampness. The only advice that they can obtain from the housing department, which does not agree that it is dampness, is that they should open the windows to ventilate the house and burn electric fires. It seems to them that that advice is akin to the description by Sir Thomas Lipton of ocean racing, which, he thought, was like standing in a cold shower and ripping up £5


notes. Certainly, those who have to open windows and see the heat go out of a house to cure condensation would consider that to be a similar experience.
We have left the development of insulation very late. Much modern housing is deficient in this respect and I am not yet sure that standards of public housing in particular are up to what one would expect. On a visit to Norway last year I found that one of the claims made by the builders of prefabricated houses was that they could cut fuel bills by 50 per cent. if the same houses were erected in Scotland, taking the expenditure and the consumption in a given area. They have tested their own houses against what others had to face.
That may have been part of a sales technique, but I was not there with the aim of buying houses, so I see no reason for that belief. I believe that it is agreed that houses with good insulation standards can make the best use of fuel and therefore there is a saving, not only to those who live in the houses, but to the country concerned.
A support price has been mentioned. If the price of oil were to drop to $7 per barrel, the effect would be cataclysmic, not only in relation to oil over the world, but to coal, because as a result of the increase in oil costs, other energy prices have been adjusted accordingly. It would be a bad thing for the world in another way if the price were to fall, for it would lose the incentive to search for alternative sources of energy, but I do not see and have not been able to find any real evidence that the price of oil would be likely to drop back to the $7 figure.
It is possible, should consumption decline, for there to be an easing of the price, but I am sure that once the world recession is over and the effects of increased cost have been tuned in, there will be a rising demand and with that rising demand will come a hardening of price. This view is borne out by the World Bank forecast that oil prices could rise to about $15 a barrel eventually before stabilising.
Again, even if this day of judgment came and the price fell to $7, one would have to deal with two specific situations, because in relation to those oil fields which have been developed in the North Sea there are two factors. One is the

capital cost; the other is the running cost. In both respects North Sea oil is more expensive than Middle East oil. But it would take about three and a half years in some cases to repay from production the original capital costs, and the main factor would then be running costs. As we should be dealing with lower prices and profits, the main effect would be to reduce the revenue available to Government.
Another effect would be to rule out any fresh production and investment decisions until such time as oil prices recovered to meet the cost of production. The hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), who was a bit coy about expressing the views of his own party about energy, had a good point when he mentioned the need for the Common Market to take cognisance of national points of view. This is a sensible argument and I understand that the Government accept it. If an EEC energy policy is developed, it should try to meet the main aims of both the producing and the consuming countries.
The Government must bear in mind the Scottish dimension. If one has to take cognisance of national aims and policies in the EEC, it is essential within the United Kingdom to pay heed to the Scottish needs in depletion and development policy. If that is not done, difficulties may be caused later. The original production figure of 180 million tons a year which the Commission had in mind would be unacceptable, if the major proportion were expected to come from the Scottish sector of the North Sea.
I assume that one of the reasons for this debate is that the Government want to know the opinion of the House on these energy Documents. Scottish independence is becoming a reality and the Government are beginning to break up, with the vote in the House last week and the loss of the Prime Minister today. It is essential that over the next few months, or years if the election is delayed until the Government have tried to recover, full account should be taken of the Scottish position.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. J. M. Craigen: I take it from the remarks of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) that he accepts the concept of a


minimum selling price. He dwelt at length on other uncertainties, both in political and in energy matters.
One of the problems in these uncertain days is allowing oil, gas or electricity industries to operate on the basis of known demand over a number of years. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will say a little more about the minimum selling price and why it should be $7 a barrel.
Document No. R/210/76 is highly important and has enormous implications for everyday life at home and in our cities and rural areas. From the section dealing with proposals for transport structures it is obvious that the Government are proposing to accept a switch of resources between private and public transport. Various measures are outlined in the guidelines which suggest that member Governments will now have to encourage public transport at the expense of private transport.
I do not take exception to that, but it does surely suggest there should be much more interdepartmental activity within the United Kingdom Government. I wonder how much liaison there has been between the Department of Energy and the Ministry for Transport on some of these proposals.
In his opening remarks, my hon. Friend the Minister of State did not say much about the "Save it" campaign. Many of us have the impression that more money is spent on public relations than on achieving savings in energy consumption. If we are to make an impact on the consumption of energy we must apply ourselves to the problem more realistically than by merely conducting an advertising campaign, as we have over the last year.
We all realise the need to reduce the extent to which we are dependent on other countries for our energy requirements. Some of the suggestions made in the Community Document about how far we can go in reducing our dependence over the next two or three years on the OPEC countries are unrealistic.

9.6 p.m.

Mr. Evelyn King: I was glad to hear the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen). The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) spoke

as an economic libertarian, and to that extent I am in sympathy with him, but the weakness in his speech was that he seemed to wish North Sea and other oil to be available in this country as cheaply as possible and to think that that was all that mattered. I cannot share that view. I might share it in any other context, but not in the context of energy.
As the hon. Member for Maryhill said, far too little attention is paid to security. It is intolerable for Britain to be dependent for a moment longer than necessary upon the Arabs and others on whom we have too little influence. That is the major aspect which overrides economic and price considerations.
We must also have regard to the security of other sources of fuel, including coal. In recent decades we have more than once been threatened by the cessation of coal production. We have three major sources of energy and we should see that at least two of those sources of energy are under our control so that if there is any problem with the third we can survive on those two sources. In considering the three main sources of energy that consideration should have high priority.
The motion and the amendment call for the House to take the view that Culham is the best site for the JET project. I do not doubt that Culham is the best site, and we should use all our influence in Europe to secure that end.
I mention my constituency only incidentally. There the Minister does not have a very good record. We had the Dragon project at Winfrith, but it was closed down at very short notice. The gravest economic harm was done to Dorset. I do not only complain about the dissatisfaction of the staff. I complain also about the letter from the Department of Energy dated 3rd March giving the reasons for the closure of the Dragon project. Above all, I question the accuracy of the events which led up to that closure.
No one not actually in the centre of negotiations can speak with certainty, and I do not claim to do so, but I say with emphasis that in Europe this country has a bad reputation—and it is growing—for its attitude to European projects. I accept the Minister's good faith in believing otherwise and in saying that he wants to be a good co-operator.


I am sure he does, but he starts with a bad record, and I hope he understands that.
The Dragon project at Winfrith started out with the highest hopes. We employed in Dorset large numbers of foreign scientists, engineers and administrators, to all of whom I give the highest praise. They contributed much to Dorset socially and technically. They feel—this is not in dispute—that they were treated extremely badly. They settled in the county, they bought houses, they sent their children to English schools, and then, as it seemed to them, at the shortest of notice their jobs were terminated. They have gone, or are going, I know not where.
On top of that we have the Minister's letter which was sent, I believe unwisely, to Mr. Springorum, Chairman of the Committee on Energy, Research and Technology in the European Parliament, setting out an account of the events which led up to the termination. I would not say that it was false in any factual sense, but it conveyed an impression to Europeans living in Brussels, and serving in Dorset, that they were entitled to resent. They resent it very much.
We want Culham and we want the sympathy of Europe. We shall get the sympathy of Europe, but only when we are shown to be sympathetic to Europe. We have not yet reached that position.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. Peter Hardy: The note struck by the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. King) in his speech is a little unfortunate, because there seems to have been a real degree of agreement between both sides of the House. It is rather regrettable that the hon. Gentleman was so busy showing sympathy for foreign scientists that he did not properly acknowledge that it would be quite wrong for the Government to finance a very large part—almost half—of what was supposed to be a multi-nation endeavour.
If we are to be the host for multi-nation co-operation in this field, we are entitled to expect our partners to pay a fair share of the bill. The other Europeans were very interested in the project at Winfrith, but not so much in the financing of it. That is not an attitude which my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench could support.
Apart from this aspect, the debate has proved to be very interesting. I am sorry to note that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), who spoke about oil, is not in his place, because I wanted to make the point that he and his party seem, despite what he said this evening, still be to geared to the belief that they can have high growth in industry in Western Europe and high energy prices, and therefore a high standard of living in Scotland.
If we are to see high energy prices, we are in danger of not securing the high level of growth which one or two hon. Members have been forecasting this evening. If energy prices soar to a higher rate than we have experienced on average in the last three years, or in the three years which preceeded the Yom Kippur war, it seems to me that that is a factor which may well take off the peak of the next international boom. That may well mean that the affluence which Scotland expects will not be achieved.
There are also very serious dangers in a low price, which is why I think it would be foolish for the Commission or for my right hon. Friends to rule out entirely the temporary use of a pricing floor mechanism for oil. However, that matter lies ahead. My hon. friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) were perfectly entitled to say that a glib assumption that our oil can cure all the problems would be mistaken. There needs to be a good deal more careful thought and a greater degree of realism inside the Commission and amongst all those responsible for the determination of Community energy policy before we accept that as an easy solution.
I wish to underline the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. Roberts). I must express a personal difficulty. I have a great deal of sympathy with the comment made by the hon. Member for Oswestry that liberal trade is desirable. However, it is also desirable to sustain the British coal industry. It is entirely foolish for Europe to be looking towards the North Sea as a supply of energy for itself and not merely for Britain and at the same time to endanger the permanent continuity of the major coal industry inside the Community.
Polish coal prices today are ridiculously low. It has been suggested that they were below the level of costs of production. The people responsible—this basically concerns electricity generation in North Germany—are taking a shortsighted view. If Europe is at present flirting with the establishment of a common energy policy it cannot afford to endorse short-sighted activities of that kind.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will bear in mind the point which has been made quite properly by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton—a point which has certainly been seized upon by the National Coal Board, which has commented about it quite recently, although it is a fact that some of my hon. Friends and I were commenting on it three, four and perhaps even five years ago. The present pricing of Polish coal in Germany is so ludicrously low that the Germans themselves should wonder what gifts are being borne.
I wish to refer to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps). The hon. Member for Oswestry said that my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central, (Mr. Hamilton) commented that as a good European he was quite confident that Britain should use all its indigenous oil. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West added the qualification that the British people should be aware that much of the oil we shall soon be extracting from the North Sea will be of such a high quality that it would be foolish to waste it on basic purposes. I see no objection in not serving the national interest by adding £120 million or £150 million—

Mr. Biffen: I find myself in the most extraordinary and unsought rôle of defending the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). The hon. Gentleman did not say that Britain should use all the oil lifted from the North Sea, but that it should retain control of its destination, which is a rather different proposition.

Mr. Hardy: I have not fully recovered from gastric influenza and I hope that the House will forgive me if I have misinterpreted the report of what my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central

said. The fact remains that my hon. Friends the Members for Fife, Central and Dudley, West can march together in continued unanimity. There is a good deal of profit to be made, and we can make it without surrendering control.

Mr. Biffen: I do not want to labour the point, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps) would be the first to agree that this matter touches upon a point which needs to be given further attention. It concerns the amount of downstream activities and refining which one might expect to take place in this country. That is the point at issue between the hon. Member for Dudley, West and the hon. Member for Fife, Central. However, there will be sufficient divisions on the Treasury Bench and Back Benches over the next few weeks, and therefore perhaps this is a luxury we can postpone for a little while—but we cannot postpone it for ever.

Mr. Hardy: We have at present a surplus of refining capacity. The latest planning approval of a refinery has ensured that any conflict of interest or any clash of personalities in that sphere will be avoided for a little longer.
In spite of my disagreement with the hon. Member for Dorset, South, I am sure that we agree about the need for the fusion project to be sited in the United Kingdom. That is entirely justified. The point has already been made that we are the only member State without a major European research project under way. We are pioneers in the whole subject of nuclear research and technology, and Europe could recognise that and pay tribute to it by siting the project in this country.
We should be careful, however, not to get into the situation in which European financial resources are so over-committed to research into nuclear capacity that the need to continue research into proper and effective use of solid fuel is overlooked. We have begun to make strides there, and it would be appropriate for the Minister to remind the House of some of the achievements and potential achievements of that research.

9.22 p.m.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: One hon. Member asked why the floor price


for oil had been set at $7 a barrel. Document 210/76 says that if the price
should fall in real value to $7 then 25–30 per cent. of the energy production forecast for the Community in 1985 would no longer be economic. If the price fell to $5 around 50 per cent. would be uneconomic.
But, surely the point is that even if it were possible to secure that price agreement amongst the European States, with the exception of France, if the price fell as low as $5, those countries would go for the cheapest source they could secure and it would be unreasonable to expect any of them to adhere to that price. I accept the liberal moves which have been expounded by my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen). I have often been misreported in this House as saying that I support the floor price system.
I wish to confine my attention to the document relating to the Joint European Torus. Perhaps I may put three questions to the Government. What is the future of national research programmes on thermonuclear research now that there is the prospect of a central site with a budget allocated, deriving 80 per cent. from the Commission and 20 per cent. participation from member States? Does it mean that if the project did not go to Culham, the laboratory would have to be dismantled? Does it mean that we should have no research centre for this extremely important subject?
Is it appropriate to create a Community fusion centre at this stage in view of the interrelated activities and collaboration between the member states? Or are we to continue with a centralised body making the finance available? That is another problem that must be resolved.
Thirdly, since the United States, measured by its target expenditure, is likely to have a considerable lead over the EEC, would it not be commercially more prudent eventually to license United States technology at a later date? After all, Continental Europe pursued this course with fission by licensing Westing-house light-water reactors.
The EEC programme, which is for a 15-year period, is costed at about £70 million. The United States project is a rolling five-year programme involving expenditure of £100 million in 1976 and of £150 million in 1977. After five years the total will be £1,000 million.
Naturally, it could be said that the USA has a 25-year lead time. It may be said that we could save the considerable sum which is to be spent on a research centre, wherever it is to be in Europe, by obtaining a licence at a later date. I proffer those three suggestions for the Government to consider more carefully before moving on to the next stage of deciding the exact location.
I am bound to suggest that the research centre should be Culham. I approach the matter by asking whether the Commission is asking itself the wrong questions and whether it is giving sufficient weight to the issues that really matter, the issues vital to the success of the project. The siting committee posed the point concerning
the possible importance of putting the project in a centre possessing an environment of people competent in plasma physics.
It noted that
The sites of Culham and Garching have a large environment of professionals and technicians specialised in plasma physics, closely followed by Julich.
To my surprise it concluded:
As far as the scientific aspects are concerned, for the reasons set out, the Commission does not consider that the presence or the absence on the site of previous experience in plasma physics is determinant".
How can it conceivably reach that conclusion bearing in mind that it is prepared to invest £70 million over 15 years? How can it put scientific value at the bottom of its considerations and place matters such as social facilities in a very much higher context?
I think that it will be generally agreed that Dr. Marshall, the Chief Scientific Adviser of the AEA, is a fairly independent witness. On 27th February 1976 he was reported in the Financial Times as saying:
Plasma physics is really tough—much tougher than building an accelerator which is a well-defined engineering task. Plasmas are a whole new state of matter, the science of which is not understood. Any machine you build in plasma physics is intrinsically surrounded by uncertainty. Therefore to have a very powerful scientific and technological background is a pre-eminent factor to determine success, and Culham is the site in all Europe giving the maximum chance of success.
I hope that the Government will endorse that view. That is the view of their own scientist, an independent man and fair in his judgment.
I should say that in this phase the United Kingdom has an excellent track record. The JET project derives from a Russian invention—namely, Tokamak—which itself derives from a United Kingdom experiment in the 1950s, then described as Zeta. Furthermore, JET has been designed by an international team of 57, 40 per cent. of whom are British. The team was lead by a French fusion physicist by the name of Dr. P. H. Rebut. The team worked at the Culham laboratories of the AEA. Work was commenced in 1974. It involved a large United Kingdom study.
The Commission's plan would involve transferring the Community's international fusion research from Culham to one of its own JRCs in Italy—namely, Ispra. It would be transferred from the United Kingdom but that does not necessarily mean the selection of a French site.
It is only right to say that Ispra has had virtually no experience in plasma physics and that only a modest programme was begun in 1974 on fusion technology. Its revised 1973 programme is based primarily on reactor safety and new sources of energy and includes nuclear safety, radioactive waste, hydrogen production and development, and solar energy. If the Commission were to draft in fusion, environmental resources and service activities, the total staff required would work out at between 630 and 930 scientists, and between 70 per cent. and 74 per cent. of all research workers in JRC establishments would be located at Ispra.
What is really significant and what the House should bear in mind is that the Community's only major project, Orgel, which was based at Ispra, failed. Essor, at Ispra, is a heavy-water moderated organic liquid-cooled test reactor. It is linked to the Orgel project, developed by the six Community countries in the 1960s. The project failed following the Community's decision to opt for United States reactor systems. It represents the Community's only experience of handling a major project. I think, therefore, that I have outlined to the House—and I hope that I have succeeded in convincing the Minister—that Culham is the first priority on the ground that it has the environ- 
Mental facilities and the skilled people available to make a success of the project.
I now turn to Ispra, because I want to advance some of the arguments. It has a poor international image and has been described in the national Press as being
a cross between a geriatric centre for obsolete scientists and a revolutionary cell for Italian unionists.
It has chronic labour problems, and these have abated only pending a decision on the JET site. No Community member can rejoice at the prospect of a vital research function being placed in Italy, particularly when this may represent an area where the Communists are growing in strength in the Government.
If Ispra had a good track record, there would be argument in its favour. But since its initial budget in 1973, which was designed for a four-year term, Ispra has been compelled to operate virtually on a year-to-year basis. Due to the parsimony of the member States, it was granted quite insufficient money. Therefore, virtually the whole sum has been spent on operating expenses, and little money has gone into research.
The International Energy Agency has allocated thermonuclear research to the Commission, and indisputably it is for the lead authority—that is, the Commission—to shape the course of development of this aspect of research. I confess that the Commission will select, and has the right to select, one of its four JRC sites—Ispra, Karlsruhe, Patten and Geel—and it must take into account whether any one of these is unsuitable and, indeed, whether any site inside the Community has superior amenities. I suggest that on this occasion it should be here in the United Kingdom.
There is a very important argument which we should consider. Italy has claimed that its share of allocations internationally and in a European context has not been as favourable as those received by other member States. If this is true, it might be argued that the Italians should be considered as first claimants for thermonuclear research.
But let us for a moment examine the claims. In terms of enriching uranium, the tripartite gas centrifuge treaty was concluded between the United Kingdom, the Federal Republic and the Netherlands. It was felt that the Italians had been excluded from this arrangement. However,


this is not necessarily the case. The Italians appear as members of the French EUROD1F project, which is the gas diffusion plant, and this associates France, Belgium, Italy and Spain. Therefore, the Italians are not eliminated from that association.
Then there is the reprocessing of irradiated fuels. In 1971, United Reprocessors Gmbh was formed associating British Nuclear Fuels Limited, CEA of France and KEWA of Germany. This was not expected to include the Italians, as their nuclear programme was then much smaller than those of the remainder of the people inside the Community, especially those of the United Kingdom, France and the Federal Republic.
The United Kingdom has a net capacity in operation of 5,563 MW. Under construction, there is another 6,200 MW. France has 3,901 MW in operation, with another 11,000 MW under construction. The Federal Republic has operating 2,973 MW and under construction approximately 15,000 MW. Italy has operating only 597 MW of nuclear capacity and under construction well under 1,000 MW. Therefore, it is obvious that Italy would not figure in the reprocessing of irradiated fuels on an international basis, although it has a reprocessing plant.
It is argued that the International Energy Agency did not give Italy satisfactory allocations. The National Coal Board is a beneficiary of one of its ideas. Nuclear safety has been referred to another organism inside the OECD, but the Commission has referred nuclear safety study to Ispra. Hydrogen development has also been allocated by the IEA to Ispra. Geothermal research and development has been awarded to Italy. Therefore, Italy has done remarkably well on that score.
It is only right to indicate that Italy has done remarkably well in the allocation of international and other European high temperature reactors. Novatome, which was recently brought into being, associates France and the Federal Republic in high-temperature reactor development following the collapse of the international facilities at Winfrith Heath. Italy was associated through the Commission—Euratom—in the Dragon project and probably maintains an interest through the European Nuclear Steel-

making Club which has joined Euro-HKG, created to serve the potential customers of the high-temperature reactor. The Italians have not been left out on that score.
On fast-breeder reactors, while there is a link between Kraftewerke Union of the Federal Republic and the United Kingdom, there is nevertheless a tripartite agreement between the State-owned electricity utilities of France, Italy and the Federal Republic to share the cost of the construction and power output of Superphenix to be built on the Rhone and likely to be Europe's first commercial fast-breeder reactor. I think that has demolished the argument that Italy has not been adequately served.
I should like to deal with some miscellaneous factors and bring them together. In scientific and technical competence in the area of plasma physics Ispra's experience is virtually nil. Regarding electricity availability, Ispra is rated as excellent, but Culham and Julick are rated as very good.
Concerning tritium, materials and safety, Ispra is inferior to Cadarache in France and only marginally better than Culham. High-temperature materials are handled by a separate JRC establishment at Petten in the Netherlands.
Regarding industrial support facilities, the ability to handle large-scale plant activities will depend on large engineering manufacturing capacity in the Milan area. That fact is recognised.
I now come to the accommodation available for research. The Commission, in Document R 2627/75, at page 8—this lets the cat out of the bag—states:
The introduction of new activities of significant magnitude on the Ispra site, alongside even a reduced JRC programme, should bring more rational utilisation of the existing infrastructure. Thus, in addition to the numerous technical advantages offered by the site for accommodating the Jet project, the presence of this machine at Ispra should permit this rationalisation and allow significant savings through the combination of two programmes.
I dare say that the Commission, for political expediency, to utilise the facilities a little better and ignoring all the technical and scientific qualifications which may be necessary, earnestly recommends that the new research programme should go to Ispra.
Finally, there are two points which the Commission puts at the top of its list but which come at the bottom of mine. On the general support position, Ispra is less favourable than Julick but on a par with Culham, Cadarache and Garching. On infrastructure of social facilities, Ispra is rated excellent. This, of course, includes the presence of a European school, which the Ambassador referred to in a letter to the Financial Times the other day, housing and buildings to accommodate research.
It would not be right to take up any more time, but I think it was only right to set out at some length the argument why research facilities should come to the United Kingdom. This matter has been considered by the Scrutiny Committee, but it is only right that we should debate it here. I hope that the Commission will note our arguments.
There could be arguments on other important points, like the floor price, the coal industry, how far we should expand our nuclear industry and whether we should have a larger programme. I hope that the Government will bear in mind that other aspects of the Documents should be considered. To suggest that we can adequately canvass the arguments on the Documents before us in the Chamber is quite unrealistic.

9.42 p.m.

Mr. David Penhaligon: I have tried to gauge the feeling of hon. Members during this debate and I fear that I am nearly on my own in believing that the basic premise of the Documents is wrong—the commitment to generate about 50 per cent. of Europe's electricity by nuclear power by 1985. That is only nine years away and physically it cannot be done.
We have learned today that there is a real risk of uranium fuel shortages in the next few years because of this programme and a real possibility that in a few years nuclear energy will face the same problem as other methods of generating power. Basic fuel will be in short supply and people will begin to worry about the long-term prospects.
But it is safety which worries me most. I am by training an engineer. Experience of running a research department dealing with something very different from

nuclear power has convinced me that one is always tripped up by the unknown. Despite our recent debate on nuclear safety, I am not happy. As well as the unknown, there is the obvious possibility of terrorism. But what struck me most in that debate was the inadequacy of our procedures for discussing something of this technical complexity.
I know just enough about nuclear power to know that I know nothing about it. That did not seem to be the general feeling of the debate. All I can do, given the opposing arguments, is ask half-intelligent, or even quarter-intelligent, questions and to try to decide which is likely to be the safest course. A debate here will not achieve that.

Mr. Albert Roberts: The experts have been giving opinions about nuclear power for 30 years and have been proved entirely wrong.

Mr. Skeet: Experts have been wrong for 2,000 years.

Mr. Penhaligon: We have not had nuclear power for 2,000 years. Perhaps if we had we should be much better informed than we are now.
All the politicians can do about something as technical and dangerous as nuclear power is to sit down and let the experts present the arguments as they see them. The unenviable task of the politician is to back one horse or another, or perhaps in some circumstances to say "We shall try no horses at all". The experts have been wrong, which is the very point I tried to make. The transfer to nuclear energy is the result of the chronic shortage of fuel and energy that hit this country two or three years ago.
The fact is that we have oil, enormous quantities of coal and substantial quantities of gas. Although I do not want to see the nuclear power adventure stopped, 50 per cent. of Europe's power by 1985 is quite a ludicrous target—one which we shall not achieve and to achieve which we may take real risks with the community in which we live, risks that are not acceptable.

Mr. Skeet: If the hon. Gentleman walks across the road he takes a greater risk than if he stands outside a nuclear power station. The prospect of that station being struck by a bomb is so remote as hardly to be considered.

Mr. Penhaligon: The hon. Gentleman speaks with tremendous knowledge. I have spoken to eminent physicists who have Ph.Ds and various other qualifications. I do not know the hon. Gentleman's qualifications, but I can present well-qualified people who would argue that the risk is there. We do not know the percentage but the risk is there. Those people say that we take great risks.
Most of the remainder of the Document includes a magnificent diatribe on thermodynamic efficiencies, most of which even I know from my knowledge of thermodynamics. The Document points out interesting and exciting innovations For example, if one does not put the brakes on so often when driving, if the car is in better shape or if one insulates a building one will use less fuel. If six people are in a car instead of two, in terms of passenger miles one will, again, use less fuel. It tells us that we could improve our efficiency of power and heat generation. It says that district heating schemes could make a real contribution to energy conservation. All that is true and I criticise it only for its obviousness.
The Document also reveals that this country leads the world in at least one area, namely, advertising. This is illustrated on every page which sets out a list of the things that various member countries have done. There can be little doubt that the United Kingdom is top of the league when it comes to advertising. There is very little else for which we are top of the league. We have introduced some compulsory regulations on insulating buildings. I recommend the reading of these revealing eight pages. However, on many pages the United Kingdom is shown to have done nothing other than advertise some fairly obvious energy-saving methods.
As we are conducting our discussion of energy at the "obvious" level, I want to give an example where energy savings could be made. This week I visited a constituent in an old Cornish house. He showed me a window which even when closed left a gap large enough to drop a packet of 20 cigarettes through. During the past few months I hoped that the Government's great job creation activity would have performed a useful service. Certainly my constituent's window could have been modified so that a packet of

cigarettes would not fall out when the window was closed.
The unemployed could make a real contribution in work of this nature by using labour-intensive, elementary insulation practices in ordinary private homes. To date, at least, I see very little of that being done.
The third and last thing to which I want to refer is the very good piece in the Document about solidarity in the event of oil supply interruption. I think that it is obvious to the House that we all want to avoid another crisis along the lines of that which occurred in 1973–74. When Holland appeared to be the only country to have the courage to hold to its anti-Arab position—whether or not that was justified, at least Holland held its political opposition—I did not find it a very edifying spectacle to see the rest of the European countries scurrying for cover and adopting any sort of posture to get oil.
The EEC is right to talk about reducing our dependence on external primary sources of energy. We would, thereby, reduce the EEC's vulnerability while at the same time increasing ways of mutual support and trade in crude oil and petroleum products.
My main point is that the crisis of 1973 strengthened the need in the EEC for a common foreign policy. On that occasion we nearly landed up with the worst of all worlds. The need for a strong, clear and principled EEC foreign policy has never been clearer.

9.52 p.m.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: I have listened very intently to the last two speeches. In their own way, both of them were extremely good. I think that I was probably dreaming a little during the speech of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet), as though I might have been listening to someone in the Italian Parliament giving a different version of why the JET should go to Ispra and not to Culham.
One thing about our nation is that we have always been very generous. Although we came into the European Community late on, we shall have to make certain that the EEC countries do not use us and the massive power that we have within our boundaries.
As I read the Document, I am afraid that Culham will have a very hard fight, in spite of what the hon. Member for Bedford said, to make certain that it is the centre for the JET. It is quite plain from the Document that every argument has been put in favour of its not being in this country. It is also plain that, unless we put up a strong and bitter fight against them, the European representatives will ensure that Culham will not be the site for this new fusion programme and that it will most likely be in Italy, which, as has been stated, is probably the least efficient European nuclear power nation.
From reading the Document, I feel that the EEC countries are determined not merely to have the centre in Italy, but to take from this country our highly efficient nuclear technologists and scientists. We have a wonderful team at Culham with tremendous experience of nuclear power. If we allow the EEC to split up those scientific teams with all their technological knowledge our Government will not be doing their job. They must be firm on this subject, because it is obvious that the EEC countries will try to take advantage of our generous nature.
Although we talk a great deal about fusion, we must appreciate that there is not yet in the EEC countries the amount of fusion we as Europeans should like to ensure. Each country still possesses its own national spirit and is determined to look after its own interest first. Therefore, the other EEC countries are not entitled to demand of the United Kingdom that we should pass to them our scientists in order that those other countries may progress in this new technology.
On the other hand, we must not be selfish. On the information I have received, I am certain that Culham is the best base for this new fusion programme in the EEC. I hope that our representatives in the forthcoming bitter fight will ensure that we are successful in any negotiations.
The hon. Member for Bedford mentioned safety. It is a worrying situation. I understand that the effects of radioactive materials can last for as long as 20,000 years. Therefore, safety questions must be predominant in our minds in this useful, but obviously dangerous,

industry. We must admit that we do not yet know enough about these materials. Although the United Kingdom must never lose advantage in any progress made in this respect, we must also maintain a high level of safety. It is undoubtedly known throughout the world that the safety of the United Kingdom industry is far superior to that of any other European country. It was rumoured in the United States not so long ago that some nuclear reactors were showing signs of becoming unsafe. This is a very important development and we must pay due attention to it.
It is well known in all the other EEC countries that the United Kingdom has large oil resources, and those other countries want their share. We sometimes talk glibly about the tremendous financial gains that will flow from North Sea oil. I hope that they will, but that financial gain is based on the fact that oil supplies from OPEC countries are being kept at a high cost level. In a future situation we could find those prices falling and therefore our own North Sea oil may not be worth obtaining.
I cannot believe that Germany, Italy and France would not take advantage of cheap oil supplies from OPEC countries, regardless of the policies laid down in the EEC. If those cheap supplies were available, we might be put at a disadvantage in respect of our own oil resources. I might be thought to be taking a gloomy view of the situation, but I believe that we must be realistic.
If we do not prepare for that, we could be at a disadvantage. We must ensure the United Kingdom has first claim on North Sea oil. When my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) made the statement which was related to the House by the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), he was talking about being a good European. He is probably a better European than many other Europeans from other countries, but he knows the sort of attitude which still exists. Until there is a greater understanding and acceptance of European countries being moulder together, we must ensure that we look after our own supplies of energy.
Although, as hon. Members have said, nuclear power is new and we do not know enough about it, I believe that it


will eventually become the world's greatest source of power. It is anybody's guess what will happen after that. I suspect that there is a danger in the supply of uranium, although the fast breeder reactor will help to make certain that uranium lasts longer. But we must find other sources. There is probably plenty of uranium in the world, but we do not know where it is. We must go on searching for it. Uranium will be in short supply and will be a finite fuel for some time.
There is more coal in this country than we shall need for the next 200 years at the present rate of consumption, but there are still those hon. Members who believe that the coal industry should be run down still further. When I first came to the House, I looked forward to the day when I could say that there was no need for anyone to work in the mines. I worked in the pits in the bad old days and I know what it means. I could not make such a statement today, because friends in my constituency would lose their jobs.
We must ensure that the coal industry becomes more efficient and appreciated by the nation until we can provide other work for the miners. We shall realise the value of our coal more in 50 years than we do today, because if we are not careful by that time more pits will have closed, there will be fewer miners and demand will be greater than supply. Once we lose the miners, it will be difficult to persuade others to work in the pits. The more young people are educated, the less inclined they are to go into the mines to earn a living, and we understand that. We must ensure that the number of men in the mining industry is kept up to a reasonable level.
The level of imports is having an effect on morale in the industry. Although we have stocks of coal totalling 30 million tons, we are importing all kinds of coal. It is difficult to argue about anthracite, which is in short supply, but which we hope will recover. Other coking coal is also in short supply but not enough is said about blending.
Cheap supplies of coal are being imported from Poland and other countries. But sometimes we find that its price is far greater than that of coal produced in this country. Other coals are being imported into this country and

into the EEC while we have stocks of coal and coal in the ground.
What kind of European relationship is this when Europeans do not say to the National Coal Board "You have coal which we want and we will take it from you"? They say "We can get it a bit cheaper from an Eastern European country", regardless of the fact that it is being subsidised by that country, and they take it. This is a lack of understanding between nations.
What is happening as a result is that the mineworkers of this country, who are fully aware of this situation, are embittered. A fear is now going through the coal industry that further pit closures are to take place in areas where there is a very high level of unemployment. When the facts are as I have put them this evening, one can appreciate that the miners have grounds for their anxiety.
I hope that when my hon. Friend on the Front Bench and others who might be involved hold discussions with representatives from EEC countries on the subject of energy they will take into account what has been said this evening, because this country has to build up its stocks. It has to revive. Not only mining but every industry in this country has to be encouraged to feel that in this bitter fight for survival in this competitive world we want to ensure that we stand on our own feet when it comes to battling with countries in the EEC for what is fair and just. I hope, therefore, that when these discussions take place my hon. Friends will be successful in bringing back to this country the results for which we are all hoping.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are 33 minutes before the winding-up speeches and there are still three hon. Gentlemen who wish to be called.

10.8 p.m.

Mr. Peter Rost: A number of speakers, and particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) and my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), have referred to the energy crisis that will face us unless we take appropriate action. There are two ways in which we can do so. One is to provide additional alternative resources. The other is to use less wastefully the resources that we have now and will


have between now and the next two or three decades.
It is for this reason that I welcome the initiative from the EEC in these Documents on proposals for a more rational use of energy. I hope particularly that these proposals will act as a spur to this Government to shake them out of their rather complacent attitude of believing that by launching a "Save it" advertising campaign they have solved conservation problems. In my few minutes I shall attempt to indicate that, far from any complacency being justified, their contribution to a more rational use of energy in this country is just about bottom of the league and that we need to do a great deal more about it. We can less afford to waste energy than can other European countries because we are relatively poorer and our economy is relatively more sluggish.
It has been estimated that the provision of energy in this country absorbs about 15 per cent. of our gross national product. That figure has been rising in recent years, it is higher than our competitors and is too high because we waste too much. If we could reduce that proportion, we would be benefiting the economy, reducing production costs, improving our competitive position, contributing to a better standard of living, helping the balance of payments and putting ourselves in a position to reduce public expenditure. Above all, we could free the resources going into the GNP for other, more useful, purposes.
What does our conservation campaign look like compared with the campaigns run by our European partners? We have had an advertising campaign. It has been very effective and I do not wish to denigrate it, but every other European country has had advertising which has been just as effective. On the Department of Energy's own figures, the campaign has reduced energy consumption by about 2 per cent. The rest of the reduced consumption has been caused by the mild winter, the economic recession, and the economic pricing of energy. We have also had a small loans scheme to industry, which has been a flop, and some restrictions on lighting and speed limits.
Before we get too complacent, we should look at what has been done elsewhere, and the Documents show what

other countries are doing in addition to their advertising campaigns.
Buildings and building services take about 40 per cent. of the energy in this country. Although our revised building regulations apply to new buildings, that is also the case in the rest of Europe. We are only now beginning to move up to their standards. On existing buildings, there is tax relief available for approved insulation work in Germany, France, and Italy, but not in the United Kingdom. Grants for approved insulation work are available in Germany, Belgium, Denmark, France, and the Netherlands, but not in the United Kingdom. Yet we need these incentives more because we are bottom of the league table of insulation standards in Europe. We should be doing more, not less, than our EEC partners in order to catch them up.
Grants are available for approved work on approved heating systems in Germany, Denmark, France and the Netherlands, but not in the United Kingdom. In Denmark, Germany and Italy, there are specific policies for the promotion of district heating, but not in the United Kingdom. Yet these countries already have more district heating than we have, and, one would imagine, need less promotion and incentive.
There is a tax régime which provides incentive for switching to diesel engines in Belgium, Italy and the Netherlands, but not in the United Kingdom. The combined production of electricity and heat for industry and district heating is positively encouraged in Germany, Denmark and Italy, but not in the United Kingdom.
In Belgium, Germany, France and Italy—which comprise virtually the entire European nuclear programme—nuclear stations will be sited only where they can be associated with industrial complexes for the provision of the processed heat to industry. But that does not happen in the United Kingdom.
From those few examples it is clear that our conservation programme is not coming up to requirements, although we are in more desperate need to promote a more rational use of energy than are our European competitors. An investment programme would be cost effective, would be in the national interest and would benefit the economy.
The EEC report which we are debating tells us what others are doing and emphasises what we are not doing. The two main areas where we lag behind are thermal insulation and the application of combined electricity and heat to improve thermal efficiency, particularly in the electrical industry.
There are valuable pointers in the Documents, which I have not the time to go into now. Within the EEC 15 per cent. of electricity production is combined with the production of heat in power stations. That is done mostly by the process of removing steam by back-pressure boilers and the removal of steam by blowing off. Some is from exhaust heat from gas turbines and diesel engines. That figure of 15 per cent. is going up fairly quickly, particularly in industry. It is advancing in France, Germany and the Netherlands.
I shall draw my main theme to a conclusion by quoting two sets of figures which are very disturbing. The first table gives the percentage of electricity produced in European countries in the public and private sectors in a combined heat and electricity power unit. The figures for individual countries are revealing. The figures come from the Documents before us and they are for 1972. There may have been marginal improvements since. In Denmark over 35 per cent. of electricity is now produced as combined heat and electricity. In Germany the figure is 20 per cent., in Italy 18 per cent., in France nearly 17 per cent., in the Netherlands 10 per cent. and in the United Kingdom only 7 per cent. The table is relevant because it goes on to explain why our electricity prices are so high and why electricity is pricing itself out of the market. I maintain that it also goes some way to explaining why our economy is relatively less efficient and why we are having to spend more in GNP on providing the energy we need and more than we should need to spend.
When we compare that table with the second table to which I wish to draw the House's attention, the picture will be complete. The second table is tucked away in the small print of the Plowden Report, just published. It is a comparative table of the thermal efficiency of electricity generation in this country and other European countries. The figures are for 1973, and they are for the public

sector electricity industry. The thermal efficiency of electricity generation in France is 35·4 per cent., in Italy 34·2 per cent., in Belgium 33·8 per cent., in Germany 30·6 per cent. and in the CEGB 29·6 per cent. Admittedly, the latest figure for the CEGB is about 31 per cent., but over the past three years the other European countries have also marginally improved their thermal efficiency.
The difference between our performance in thermal efficiency of electricity generation and that of the best European country represents, in my estimation, approximately £300 million a year that could be saved, that we are now wasting, and that the consumer is paying in extra electricity prices. No wonder electricity is expensive and uncompetitive.
The Plowden Report has been critical of this, as have other reports, including the EEC Documents now before us. The Select Committee on Science and Technology has taken evidence and made a number of points in the same direction. Even the Chief Scientist, Dr. Walter Marshall, who has been investigating the need to get information moving in this country, has made critical noises from time to time.
I maintain that if this EEC Document does nothing more than highlight that we have no justification for complacency in this country about our programme for the more rational use of energy, it will have done something useful. By comparing the performance, particularly in the one sector—the application of combined electricity and heat and of thermal efficiency in our electricity generating system—we could, I believe, find many answers to what is wrong with our economy.
So far the 2 per cent. real saving that we have had in energy consumption through the Government's programme is doing nothing to change the longer-term pattern of production, or to bring about the longer-term reduction in wasteful consumption that is needed. We could be saving very substantial sums on the gross national product by reducing this waste. We could be helping the economy, the balance of payments, our standard of living, and our competitiveness abroad. Therefore, I urge the Government to study what is going on in Europe and to take seriously the recommendations of the experts who are advising us on what we should be doing, rather than just talk about it.

10.22 p.m.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: I am gravely concerned about several aspects of the developments relating to energy policy in Europe, the manner in which it is being dealt with, and the extent to which the House of Commons is unable to have an opportunity to examine papers and documents in such a way that a useful contribution can be made. We need this facility if we are to bring some easement into what is becoming a critical situation as energy policy evolves.
It is a complex matter, and I do not seek to deal with it in either anti-Common Market or pro-Common Market terms. We need to examine the reality of the present situation and to ask ourselves a very simple question. In a highly industrialised world in which energy is ultimately the only effective yardstick of economic survival and in which competition is running apace in America and Russia, particularly in fusion experiment, there must be a warning from the House of Commons that the Western world cannot afford to suffer the procrastinations of protracted talks in Europe on a matter such as this.
I attribute to the Minister who will be winding up the debate that kind of concern. Therefore what I say will not be critical of him. Having, as a member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, met Dr. Walter Marshall, it would be quite wrong for me to be critical of him, for the obvious reason that as a civil servant he cannot answer. On the contrary, both my hon. Friend and Dr. Walter Marshall have approached this serious problem with vigilance and, indeed, with care.
I am no, therefore, critical in that respect. I am saying that both are prisoners of a disconcerting, angry and worrying situation. There is no question about it. As we are members of the EEC, we must meet the realities of the situation, seek to improve it and to warn the Community that what is going on must be brought to an end. I do not want to discuss the Document referring to the other general matters, but I wish to refer to those which concern us most in connection with the JET programme—normally referred to as the Joint European

Torus—its siting and the vexing situation of Ispra.
First, I point out that we are talking about papers which are out of date. The first paper is datelined "Brussels 2nd February 1976". The explanatory note to the Document, which I presume the Government have prepared for us, is dated 12th February 1976. However, talks took place in Brussels on 24th February. On that date at about 2.30 a.m. the discussions were in such a state of deadlock that not only did they end without any answers to the problems, but those taking part stupidly even forgot to vote moneys to keep the design team working.
At Culham there are people of the highest professional standing in research and development work. They have made advances through the various stages of fission and fusion research, an achievement which Ispra cannot come anywhere near equalling. They have passed through what might be called the popular exposition for the general reader. The success of Zeta was in itself a great British achievement. However, that is only one of the phases leading up to the Tokamak route in the fusion programme. The work at Culham is the most exciting I have heard about as a member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. By every test we have the best record of any of the countries in the Nine.
The explanatory note from the Government dated 12th February says:
JET is the most expensive single experiment ever contemplated by the Community. It is also one of the most difficult. It is, therefore, essential that it should be sited where it has the best possible chance of success. In Her Majesty's Governments view the most essential pre-requisite is a background of fusion technology and plasma physics on which the JET team could draw in tackling the problems of construction and initial operation which must be expected with an advanced project of this kind. Culham, whose fusion work has been particularly directed at the Tokamak route, is the best qualified site in this respect; Ispra has no relevant experience.
The Government motion says that in the Government's view
Culham is the best site for the Joint European Torus project.
But we know that. We do not need a motion to tell us it is the best The


Opposition amendment is couched in much more attractive terms. It says that the Government should
secure the choice of Culham as the research centre.
Since Europe has had a great deal of the research and development gravy, and since this country has a balance of payments deficit with Europe—without it we should be in surplus of—it is time our friends in Europe dropped this silly assertion that because we are challenging a European location and are defending our interests, we are being poor partners.
Culham's claim, based on technical achievement, research know-how and the availability of all the necessary facilities, is far superior to that of Ispra. The talks of 24th February were not only disappointing they were disgraceful Italy stood out against the other eight States. It was obdurate and inflexible. It would not negotiate.
The meeting was of the Council of Ministers Research Committee. In a bid to break the impasse the chairman suggested that the matter might go to the Commission. That would be a dreadful move, because the Commission believes, without a shadow of doubt, that the project should go to Ispra. The House of Commons has not been told that. I have had a quiet word with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I know that he is doing his best. I hope that this report will be either denied or confirmed tonight.
But let us not forget the procrastination. Such was the stalemate on 24th February that it was decided to have the next meeting on 18th June. Apart from the fact that the 18th is my birthday, I find that a terrible disappointment. I ask my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to note that I shall be asking them to give me a birthday present for my constituency before 18th June.
The Common Market still has to go through its teething troubles. It exists and we must help it to become more efficient. Let us have no more of the anti-Common Market approach. But let the House reassert itself. Let us tell our Ministers that we must not allow America or Russia to get ahead in the fusion development race. If the hopes and aspirations of Europe mean anything, we should be the leaders in energy, not dragging our feet.

10.36 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter). He made a defence of Culham that was as spirited as his condemnation of the way in which this whole affair has been discussed before the Commission. I am a member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, although I bring a slightly different view to bear, being a member of the Science Sub-Committee rather than the Energy Sub-Committee, of which the hon. Member for Hartlepool is a member.
I make one brief comment before coming on to the substance of what I have to say. I am concerned about the overall allocation of moneys on a European level to research and development. I feel that energy swallows up far too large a share. I regret that insufficient allocation is made to areas of scientific endeavour which are just as close to the needs and welfare of mankind in Europe, areas which have a more immediate and as pressing a claim as the fruition and development of new forms of energy.
As the hon. Member for Hartlepool pointed out, it is more important for Europe to develop new forms of fusion energy than it is for the United States or the Soviet Union. Western Europe imports some 65 per cent. of energy in the form of fossil fuel. There is a possibility that future energy demands cannot be met by fossil fuels, benign and renewable energy resources, or conventional reactor systems. That imposes upon us a special obligation to give priority to new forms of energy development and research. The EEC estimates that in about 50 years it will be necessary to have 24,000 large nuclear reactors to supply its projected energy needs. As the eminent observer Sir Alan Cottrell has pointed out, that will be an impossibility. The first priority, therefore, for long-term energy research must be the development of nuclear fusion.
The energy research and development programme of the European Community should take account of depletion estimates for fossil fuels, updated demand projections and the need for independent nations or alliances of nations to run parallel development programmes. The latter point is of especial importance so


as to ensure that they run competitive technology. It is important also from the security point of view that individual countries, or alliances of countries, have independent sources of fuel.
I see the fast breeder reactor as the bridge between fission reactors of today and fusion reactors of the next century. No one can fail to be impressed by the progress that the French have made with the Phenix prototype and the new Superphenix. This has superseded the progress being made in Britain, even though the AEA is applying almost half its research and development budget to fast reactors.
I do not believe that we can rely on the super-Powers, or on other alliances, to develop fusion reactors. The United States, California in particular, is considering cutting back on the construction of new reactors. We have yet to see what are the prospects for the General Atomic Company in developing high-temperature reactors and whether that, too, will have to come into public ownership because of the lack of commercial funds for the development of these futuristic forms of energy.
With regard to the European fusion programme, first of all, it is important, whatever the decision is, that JET goes ahead. Fusion technology is vital to supply the energy demands of the next century. Therefore, Europe has an obligation to ensure that JET goes ahead on some site or another. However, the best chances of obtaining success will be made through applying the best minds to the project, and those undoubtedly exist at Culham.
The site committee report found that, although Ispra was among those offering good facilities and equipment, Culham was better placed for fine and specific aspects of fusion technology. I agree very much with the comments made earlier that it is central to the viability of the project that we have adequate reserves of experience and technology, and these matters should not be derogated to criteria which the site committee was not able to consider or did not consider.
The Tokamak route which the Culham laboratory has followed in its quest undoubtedly offers the best chance of reaching the objective of 100 million degrees for one second and the best technical

prospects of obtaining the right compression of plasma and the confinement of electromagnetic fields. But, apart from the technical reasons, the more impressive and immediate reasons must be the financial ones. Here I place on record my questioning of the conclusions and the bases of some of the matters considered by the site committee.
The cost of the first phase is projected at 135 mua, 80 per cent. of which would be paid for out of the Community budget and 20 per cent. by the partners. Of this cost, some 24 per cent. is comprised of staff, yet this was not a separate matter considered in the table which the site committee formulated. United Kingdom salaries are obviously lower, and I believe—this is a view shared by the director of the Culham laboratory—that we are competitive in staffing costs. The Commission found that a saving of some 8 mua could be made at Ispra. However, I feel that the staff could be used wherever the JET project was sited, so the saving in this respect, in my view, is hypothetical.
The question of electricity supply, which again was a critical factor in the siting and which was used to show that the costs would be substantially greater at other sites than Ispra, in my view should be considered with caution as the specific design which has been investigated at Culham has not yet been allocated exact electricity requirements. I understand that the existing design requirements are the subject of negotiations with the CEGB at the moment. It is difficult to accept the Commission's figure of a saving of 1·7 mua at Ispra.
The emphasis on the poor handling facilities for radioactive materials at Culham compared with Ispra is a very important emotive factor which may be taken into account before June. It is worth pointing out that Culham has an advantage in its proximity to Harwell, which establishment has great experience in handling such materials. I wonder whether this was a matter considered by the site committee when suggesting that the handling facilities at Ispra were substantially better.
The worst reason for siting JET at Ispra would be solely to give employment to the Joint Research Centre staff. This would not necessarily be the way to develop European scientific collaboration.


When the multi-annual research programme of the Joint Research Centre was being discussed, I was very critical of the way in which the centre, because of its existing facilities, was having work pushed into it rather than work being undertaken elsewhere in order to obtain the best chances of success.
We must recognise that the choice of site for JET has been taken out of the realms of technical analysis and put more into politics. It is a political question now, and we shall not get much joy from discussions between consultative committees or, indeed, between Energy Ministers. I believe that the only way to get the matter resolved quickly is by the Heads of State and our Prime Minister—or our future Prime Minister—meeting in Europe. I share the disappointment expressed by some hon. Members at the inconclusive result of the meeting on 24th February and the suggestion that a further consultative committee be set up in addition to the Group de Liaison.
Criticisms have been made about the termination of the Dragon project. I share some of the concern which has been expressed that we may put ourselves in a future risk situation by not having available sufficient options for the development of nuclear energy, but the reasons set out by the Secretary of State and enunciated in his letter to the chairman of the Energy Research and Technology Committee should not derogate from the possibility of the site for JET being at Culham.
The facts that some of our European partners did not consider it possible to apply the same contribution to Dragon as the United Kingdom share and that the permanent representatives in Brussels turned down the proposal for a nine months' extension programme are no reason for Culham not being considered favourably for JET. We should not be considered as a nation which is likely to draw out of such an important subject as the future of fusion technology in Europe.
These are somewhat technical matters, but I hope that they will be considered in detail and that an early opportunity will be taken to encourage the Heads of State to resolve them. I hope that we shall see some satisfactory solution—based at Culham—before June.

10.47 p.m.

Mr. Tom Normanton: The Fact that we are against the clock is conclusive evidence that there has and enthusiastic welcome for the debate.
First, I want to make the point that this debate is at last catching up with the log jam of the past in the sense that it takes place in advance of consideration by the Council of Ministers of the Documents before the House tonight.
Secondly, those Documents were tabled before the Energy Committee of the European Parliament as recently as yesterday, and four hon. Members from this House are about to take part in a deep and intensive study of their contents. I am sure that they will be greatly encouraged both by way of guidance and information from reading Hansard and that that study will be a major advance in the consideration of European legislation.
After three years in the European Parliament, I declare that I am even more convinced now than I have ever been of basically three fundamental truths.
The first is that there is no possibility whatever of any individual member country of the European Economic Community being able to go it alone, except to poverty and impotence, in all areas.
The second truth is that the problems which face Britain are in no way different in principle—only in degree—from the problems which face each member State of the Community and, indeed, all areas in the industrialised Western world, whether those problems be monetary, industrial, social, energy, or research. It follows that common problems require common solutions, and that is precisely what I see these Commission Documents telling us. If we failed to recognise this truth, we should be deceiving ourselves and we should be deceiving the electorate. The former is not unknown and may be forgiven, but the second is surely un-forgiveable.
The main point therefore is how we should implement these proposals, not whether we should do so. The Documents repeatedly use the term "guidelines". They are not directives, but are intended to guide us towards the object which must command support on both


sides of the House—an increase in economic security and independence—for lack of which all member States are paying a high and continuing price.
We all noted the Minister of State's assurance that the Government's policy is to be constructive. I hope that that will continue to be his stance and that it will be seen to be so by his opposite numbers in the Council of Ministers. We want no repetition of the game of musical chairs at the high table recently which resulted in nothing constructive or positive but only in red faces. That is bad for diplomacy, bad for energy and bad for Britain.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) said, we must recognise that we are members of the Community. We have much to gain, but we have a responsibility to give as well as to take if we are to prosper as a nation. We cannot go it alone, except to the poorhouse.
The Minister of State regarded the targets set for the production of energy as ambitious. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is not the targets which are wrong but our determination to achieve them. We are falling short of them all the time. We can accept no excuses for that, from wherever they come, particularly at a time of low energy demand. My right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford highlighted the real targets in nuclear generating capacity which we should be striving to attain.
I agree in principle with the policy on minimum safeguard prices, but believe that in practice it may prove an academic exercise. I hope that it does, in the sense that it may be academic on a long walk to take one's umbrella. That is how I regard the minimum safeguard price—as an umbrella against an unexpected but possible eventuality. But what is not academic is the effect of low oil prices on coal, the source of our historic, basic, indigenous energy.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) tried to draw a parallel between the principle of the minimum safeguard price and the common agricultural policy. However critical we may be—many of us are critical—of the

CAP, at least it produces a surplus. So far the energy policies of Europe and this country have succeeded only in producing a shortage.
I want to comment on a number of matters in connection with the JET project. Much of what I shall say has already been covered, but a number of points must be repeated. The Commission and the European Parliament have constantly demanded from the Community urgent action inside the Community on energy. It takes three forms. They want action to stimulate new sources, that is, additional sources of existing energy material such as oil, coal and nuclear energy. They have demanded action to stimulate research into even newer sources of energy. That is what the JET project is partly about. Above all, bearing in mind the importance attached to it even tonight and consistently mentioned in this House, they want action to stimulate research into new and cleaner sources of energy. That is precisely what we hope JET will eventually lead us to discover.
Although the Commission and the European Parliament propose the formulae, eventually it is the Council of Ministers or the Heads of Government who dispose. With deep reluctance I endorse everything that my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford said when he expressed great disappointment at the rate and pace of progress of an energy policy for the Community.
All this time has passed while Europe's very existence as a society and as an industrial entity is and continues to remain at risk. The situation is rather analogous to that of the body politic of each State being kept alive through an umbilical cord connecting us to a remote and separate body or heart. If it is cut, as occurred during the oil crisis and as nearly occurred during the last war, life itself will collapse.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) wants a liberal view to be taken of an energy policy. I am prepared to support that so long as we recognise that that view must be realistic. We must believe in an expansion of world trade but defend and preserve the integrity of the base from which we take part in that trade. No individual country and certainly not the United Kingdom


can ever go it alone again in relation to major developments in energy because of the unbelievable and unprecedented size of the investment required and the amount of research resources required if we are to make advances in high technology. Above all, major advances in research and investment demand a massive industrial capacity behind them. That is why this House recognises the need for the United Kingdom to be an active and positive member of the European Economic Community.
The JET project is only the first of a series of steps. Therefore, because of its size, cost and nature, it must be a cooperative or a Community venture. Therefore, the House must decide tonight whether fusion is a desirable goal in itself, that is, a goal for the twenty-first century. On the best scientific advice which seems to be available in large measure, we have to reach the answer "Yes, it is a desirable goal, and we must move in that direction."
The House also has to give a lead tonight on where the fusion research activities have to be established. We all know that the list of places is long. It is headed by Ispra. Here we come to the real crunch. If we in this House cannot agree and agreement cannot be found at the European Council, with my modest and humble knowledge of the political currents in Europe, I must record the view that there could very well be no progress on fusion research and development. If that were to be so, we should have to face the prospect of seeing the United States of America and the USSR, and possibly even Japan, leaving Britain like a helpless whale stranded high and dry on the beach of high nuclear technology.
On technical and scientific grounds Culham undoubtedly ranks high. That point is made in the Commission Document. But the decision, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) stressed very strongly, will be made by politicians, and Culham ranks very low in their minds. The reason for this is undoubtedly the experience of the Community concerning British involvement in Community actions and proposals. In that context I can only cite in evidence Dragon. Even with the Concorde there has been great anxiety and speculation about whether we would withdraw. The

Channel Tunnel project is not to be ignored, but I would not rate that too highly. However, there is this scepticism among many politicians in the EEC. It must be faced and the problem has to be resolved.
Ispra is undoubtedly the favourite in the minds of the EEC, if for no better reason than that it is already a Community research establishment. It is in business. It was established under the Euratom Agreement. In various ways it has involved itself in nuclear energy research.

Mr. Skeet: The Community has only four sites and these are not all in Community countries. Why, therefore, cannot the site be in some other State which has pre-eminence in scientific skill and technology?

Mr. Normanton: I hope that my hon. Friend will wait for just another minute—not more than that—when he will realise that I am not plugging, as the Opposition are not plugging, the concept of Ispra being the base for the JET. All that I am saying is that we should be blinding ourselves if we were to ignore the fairly extensive and considerable support which exists for Ispra.
We believe—hence our amendment—that the location should be at Culham. I also believe that we are now facing the Secretary of State with a great challenge. We earnestly hope that in the interests of British technology and this considerable amount of experience that Britain has by way of a lead over the rest of Europe, the Secretary of State will take up the challenge to sell Culham's case strongly and convincingly on its merits, and do so not as a political package.
The whole history of Community research has been bedevilled by political considerations. This House will judge the Secretary of State by his own judgment in this context, not by his traditional rhetoric. When he speaks in the Council of Ministers or elsewhere, I hope that he will bear in mind the Dragon affair. If he does not, others will. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. King) made a powerful point here and deserves a reply. The Energy Committee of the European Parliament is still awaiting a reply from the Secretary of State to its invitation to visit it and discuss this among other matters.

Mr. John Smith: My right hon. Friend has replied.

Mr. Normanton: I am delighted to hear it. The hon. Gentleman's statement will be on the record and will no doubt be raised in the Energy Committee in due course.

Mr. John Smith: I am listening with amazement and concern to the hon. Gentleman talking about the siting of the put his name to an amendment which talks about
… the outstanding experience and facilities of the Culham Laboratory …
which is a matter of agreement between us. Anyone could put up a better case than he has for siting it at Culham. Will he come clean and say whether he is enthusiastic in believing that the project should be sited at Culham?

Mr. Normanton: My colleagues and I unreservedly support the concept of Culham being the right place for the project, but it would be misleading and irresponsible to underplay the political pressures faced by the Secretary of State when he tries to press the point with his fellow Energy Ministers. We shall give him such support as we can.
The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. Roberts) did a great service to the coal industry in stressing the importance of coal within the framework of the Commission's target for energy production, but we are still falling short of those targets. My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) voiced concern about the United Kingdom nuclear programme. He was critical of certain aspects but his biggest criticism was that it was not big enough or being pursued with sufficient energy. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South made a very sound case, and it is also appropriate to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer) has been extremely active in the European Parliament in pressing and promoting the interests of those who are and have been engaged in the Dragon project.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) commands the respect of the House whenever he discusses energy. He deserves a comprehensive reply. His questions about Ispra were

searching and relevant. They reminded me of a visit I paid there two years ago. I hate to be offensive to my good friends in Italy and in the Commission, but my impression was much more that of a circus than a research centre. Fortunately, it has changed since then, thanks to the new director, but it has a long way to go before it comes within sighting distance of the technical and scientific expertise which is characteristic of Culham. The House has had a useful, valuable and constructive debate and we look forward to assurances and answers from the Minister on the many points raised by hon. Members from both sides on vital aspects of the subject.

11.10 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alex Eadie): Before I deal with the matters that have arisen in this debate I should like first to make clear the nature of the Community fusion programme and the place of JET within it. If a fusion reactor can be made to work, it holds the promise of almost unlimited power supplies from fuels which are in abundant supply. Broadly, these are deuterium, or heavy hydrogen, which is present in vast quantities in sea water, and lithium, an element which exists in millions of tons in relatively accessible deposits, some of them in this country.
So we have the incentive to do the research which will tell us whether a fusion reactor is feasible. But it will be a long, difficult road to follow; fusion power stations belong to the twenty-first century.
As the experiments become more and more sophisticated, they put more and more demands upon finance and skilled manpower. Already we are at the point where we cannot afford to do some of these experiments except in the context of international co-operation. We have been doing fusion research in the United Kingdom since the 1950s and at Culham since the early 1960s. Our expenditure on this research currently amounts to about £7 million a year, of which some £2 million is paid for by the Community.
The Americans spend 10 times as much as we do, and the Russians even more than that. So it can be seen that to stay abreast of research in the world we must regard our programme as part of the European effort, which is more nearly of


a size with the American and Russian activity.
The Community programme in this field is perhaps the most successful example of co-ordination of research that we have. By a Council decision, before we joined the Community, all fusion research in member countries is part of the Community programme and is eligible for Community funding to the extent of about 25 per cent. of its cost. The sharing out of the research work is done by a liaison group and by a Committee of Directors of Fusion Laboratories, who agree among themselves and with the Commission the work that needs to be done and who should undertake it. In order to ensure that the whole programme remains aligned with its central objectives, certain selected projects qualify for a higher proportion of Community funding. This has been about 45 per cent. of their total cost.
The Community fusion budget has been running at about 22 million units of account a year, and the Council of Research Ministers, which I attended on 24th February, agreed that the programme for the next five years, excluding JET, must in present economic circumstances be limited to 124 million units of account, or £52 million. We released 20·8 million units of account for 1976, pending a decision on JET.
I turn now to JET. This is the most expensive single experiment the Community has ever contemplated, and one of the most difficult.
In order to ensure a real Community character for the experiment, the Commission has proposed that 80 per cent. of its cost should be met from the Community budget. The balance of 20 per cent. will be shared between the national fusion laboratories, all of which have contracts of association with Euratom and all of whose fusion work forms part of the Euratom programme. We support this method of funding JET. The Commission has estimated that the construction phase of JET will cost 135 million units of account—£56 million but we think that it will be more than that, nearly £70 million.
Once it is constructed, experiments with JET may go on for 10 to 15 years. It has the potential, if it is successful, to be extended to the point where the energy

produced inside the device is equal to the energy put into it. If JET achieves this it will be a significant step forward on the way to a prototype fusion reactor.
So far, there have been no decisions on JET. If the Community cannot agree on the site, we shall not be able to go ahead with the project. This will mean re-thinking the fusion programme as a whole, much of which has been designed in support of JET. But unless the Community can agree to carry out large experiments jointly it is hard to see how Europe can continue to make its proper contribution to fusion research.
Of course, this would not rule out extending the United Kingdom's cooperation with the United States of America, and this is being done to some extent through the mechanism of the International Energy Agency. But without major experiments like JET the co-operation would gradually become one-sided. The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority also has an information exchange agreement on fusion with the Russians, and benefits from that. But there has been no suggestion of joint funding of projects.
No one suggests that the United Kingdom could go it alone down the road to fusion power. This is a goal which must be pursued internationally. For us, as members of the Community, the Euratom fusion programme is the most obvious way in which to proceed.
The Commission also proposes a new body, which was referred to rather scathingly in the debate, the Consultative Committee on Fusion, to advise the Commission on the broader aspects of the fusion programme. The committee would be composed of high-level officials, from Member States, from the other States which have signed co-operation agreements with the Community, and from the Commission itself. The committee would be created on the basis of Article 135 of the Euratom Treaty, which empowers the Commission to
establish any study groups necessary to the achievement of its tasks.
Ministers also decided that a consultative committee on fusion should be set up along the lines proposed by the Commission in Document R/253/76, but able to report both to the Council and to the


Commission and not only the Commission as had originally been proposed.
A large majority, including the United Kingdom, favoured the preparation, by this consultative committee and the Commission, of a supplement to the siting report, which might have dealt with the further studies we and others believe to be necessary on the site, cost estimates, construction time and engineering of JET. However, unanimity could not be achieved, and no decisions were taken on this or any other aspect of the JET programme. I sat for 16 hours discussing this programme and putting forward the United Kingdom point of view, despite the statement of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton) that before I went there the matter was signed, sealed and delivered, and that "It ain't coming to the United Kingdom".

Mr. Normanton: I did not say that it had been signed and settled. I said that there were rumours or statements to that effect. It was not a statement that I made myself.

Mr. Eadie: I can only say that the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm has been tepid, as he has demonstrated tonight. If I am wrong, I shall apologise.
It was, however, still open to the Commission, under Article 135 of the Euratom Treaty, to invite the consultative committee or any other group it chooses, to carry out such studies. It has called the first meeting of this committee for 29th March. The Council agreed that the discussion of JET should continue at its meeting on 18th June 1976.
We regard it as essential that this difficult experiment should be sited where it has the best possible chance of success. This means that siting must be determined primarily on scientific and technical considerations which, by and large, received little attention from the siting committee and the Commission.
In our view, the most essential prerequisite is a strong background of appropriate fusion technology and plasma physics. On these criteria, we are sure that Culham is the best site. The background is there, the electrical supplies for the enormous currents which JET will take are right to hand, the design team—an international team under a Frenchman

—is there and, above all, the will to succeed is there.
We regard the provision of infrastructure as important but secondary to the main issue. If JET comes to Culham, suitable provision will be made to house the international team and educate their children. And the academic background is certainly there—Oxford is just down the road. So we shall continue to press the claims of Culham for JET. If we are successful, we shall have to make provisions which will cost us a little more than our basic contribution to the cost of JET. Building, infrastructure improvements and schooling should not, however, cost us more than £4 million and there will be a balance-of-payments gain from expenditure by the project in the United Kingdom. We also believe that JET itself will be cheaper and more successful if we site it here.
The Council of Research Ministers is expected to consider the problems of JET again at its next meeting, which as I said earlier is planned for 18th June. One of JET, Buildings, infrastructur improve-how the JET design team will be paid if we cannot reach some agreement on JET. I understand that funds in hand will keep the team going until June, but not much longer. If we are serious about JET, the Council must at least provide money to keep the international team at Culham together while we make up our minds about the experiment.
As failure has been mentioned tonight, what happens if we cannot agree on JET? I believe this debate has pointed fairly clearly to two things. One is that fusion research will need some big experiments and we have to reach international agreement on them. The other is that it is a very long road, and a few months' delay while we reach these agreements cannot have a significant effect in the long run on the end result of the whole programme—the ultimate production of a fusion reactor.
Hon. Members have expressed concern about the future of Culham if JET is sited elsewhere. As I have said, all the fusion work at Culham forms part of the Euratom co-operative fusion programme. Its continuation is not dependent on JET being sited there.
There is no connection between the OECD's Dragon project and the Euratom


fusion programme. Dragon was an experimental high-temperature reactor in which the EEC participated. Its programme was not extended because none of the Community countries wished to pay for it. There was no reason why the United Kingdom should have continued to pay the largest share of the cost. I think this was well understood by our partners, despite what was said.
I appreciate the tolerance and consideration that I have had from the House in mentioning these matters. We must get JET right. It is too expensive and important to be put at risk by inappropriate siting. My scientific advisers believe that it can be made to work, but they have not disguised its formidable difficulty. We have to give it the very best chance, and that means siting it where the essential background experience exists. The Government believe that Culham is the best site.
Although the importance of the fusion programme and of JET should not be underestimated in any way, we must also give thought to the more conventional sources of energy which are so vital to the economy of this country and of the other member States of the Community, in both the shorter and medium term periods. I should also like to mention the non-conventional alternative sources of energy, such as geothermal, wave power, and solar. We are not neglecting to assess the contributions which we can expect from these and other relevant sources, but we should perhaps remind ourselves that they can at best produce by the end of the century only a small fraction of our energy needs. Their potential contribution by the year 2000 is estimated at about 6 to 8 per cent. of the overall energy demand at that time, on the assumption that all the options are followed up.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) is very knowledgeable about aspects of energy conservation, and pursues this aspect very diligently. We have crossed swords before on this matter both in private and in public. I shall read the hon. Gentleman's speech with a great deal of interest, but to some extent I think he over-egged the pudding when he talked of the United

Kingdom being way down in the league in its conservation programme.
In 1975 the International Energy Agency examined in detail the energy conservation programmes of all member countries, and the United Kingdom came out on top. The hon. Gentleman must have known this, and I am surprised, therefore, that he should introduce a criticism which to some extent undermined our position.
I felt that there was some conflict among hon. Members opposite about a minimum safeguard price for oil. I do not think the point made by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) was answered. He said that if coal was coming in below the cost of production from third countries, the proposition had to be examined in relation to the whole argument about a minimum safeguard price. All I can say is that I believe this policy will be in the best interests of the United Kingdom.
It is all very well to talk of a liberal policy, but it should be liberal in the sense that we do not forget errors and mistakes made in the past—for example, in the Yom Kippur War in 1973. We were beginning to forget it and to think that energy development would trickle along quite easily. We obviously have lessons to learn.
It being half-past Eleven o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business).

Amendment accordingly agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of Commission Documents Nos. R/210/76 and R/253/76 and further recognises the outstanding experience and facilities of the Culham Laboratory in the field of thermonuclear fusion, considers Culham to be the most appropriate location for the Joint European Torus, and calls on the Government to secure the choice of Culham as the research centre.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Stoddart.]

FISHING INDUSTRY (OIL INSTALLATIONS)

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Henderson: It must be a rare, if not unique, occasion to have the privilege of on Adjournment debate on the day on which a Prime Minister announced his retirement. I tried for several weeks in the Ballot for this debate, and I suppose that it is just my luck that I should have been successful on this day of all days.
The subject that I have chosen—the problems of the fishing industry as a result of oil development—is cast in somewhat wide terms. I could talk of the difficulties which fishermen face in obtaining on-shore services such as mechanical and electrical engineering maintenance facilities in competition with the oil companies and their camp followers. I could talk of the inflation of house prices, shop prices and service prices in those fishing ports most directly affected by these new developments. I could discuss the pressure on roads, schools, hospitals and other publicly financed amenities as a result of over-rapid expansion of oil projects.
However, I have chosen to speak of one of the most important considerations to fishermen—namely, the additional danger to vessels, nets, gear and sometimes to life itself of the activities of the oil companies and their associates in the seas in which our fishermen traditionally have followed their calling and made their livelihood.
The problems arrived with alarming rapidity on my desk after my election to Parliament about two years ago. The first came on 3rd May 1974 when Skipper Baird of the Peterhead boat "Starlight" wrote telling me that his nets had been damaged by two caustic soda drums in grounds where he had fished for years without difficulty or interference.
This example was quickly followed by others. In all, almost a dozen skippers from my constituency alone wrote telling me of similar incidents. Other hon. Members may well have had similar experience and had similar representations. I have taken up the matter with the Secretary of State for Energy, the Secretary of State for Scotland and in one case with the Lord Advocate when it

appeared that prima facie there was a case for prosecution.
In June 1975 the Government announced the establishment of a compensation fund for fishermen whose nets and gear had been damaged as a result of oil debris. The Under-Secretary at the Scottish Office, who will reply to the debate, wrote to me on 26th June 1975 saying:
Because of the concern you have expressed on earlier occasions about the problem of oil-related debris damaging fishing gear, I am writing to let you know that a fund has been established by the United Kingdom Off-shore Operators' Association to provide compensation for that cases in which the debris is not attributable to the activities of a particular oil company. For the first year of operation the fund will be of the order of £30,000.
I want to make it clear that I welcome this step as a valuable contribution to obtaining justice for the fishermen and as a recognition by the Government and the oil companies that something had to be done about the situation. I hoped then that, while the amount of £30,000 seemed modest in these inflationary times, the battle in principle had been won and that all that might be needed thereafter was a revision of the amount in the light of experience.
This decision by the Government left the fishermen in two situations. The first situation was where the damage had been caused by debris left by a company which could be identifiable, in which case the fishermen could take action against the company concerned. The second situation—the case which the fund is destined to cover—was where no identification could be found or provided and where the fisherman could then make his claim against the compensation fund.
I had hoped that the provisions of the compensation fund would have been such that they would have allowed the fishermen in all cases, whether or not there had been identification of the debris, to have made the claims against the fund rather than having a humble skipper or his crew taking on the might of some of the large oil companies in battles through the courts. That may well be an aspect that could be reconsidered in the light of our experience tonight.
The Under-Secretary knows that I have written to him about a number of cases that have been settled. They seem to take a long time to settle and the fisherman feels at a disadvantage when taking


on some of the biggest giants in the country in terms of financial and legal resources, and some review of the position may be desirable.
However, it seemed from information given by the Minister at the time that in cases where the offender could not be identified there was a clear way for the fisherman to make a claim against the compensation fund. I hoped that that would lead to a new period of understanding of the fisherman's problems and a quick settlement of his difficulties.
However, I was wrong, because the small print in the compensation scheme has undermined much of the value of the very favourable reaction of the fishermen to this welcome concession. On 16th September 1975 Skipper Milne of Peterhead, a constituent of mine, was fishing some 7½ miles NNE of an oil rig when he found that the propeller of his boat, the "Starella", was fouled by what turned out to be 50 fathoms of synthetic hawser 9½ ins in circumference. I do not know whether any hon. Member has experience of being in a fishing boat when the propellor has been fouled and it seems impossible to do anything about it.
Skipper Milne's boat had to be towed to port in Peterhead. The bill for repairs was some £11,000 and he estimated the loss of fishing time at some £7,000. I understand from him that his crew has been depleted as a result of the length of time required for repairs, because fishermen are not the type of men willing to lounge about a pierhead while waiting for lengthy repairs to be completed: they want to be at sea fishing. That has put Skipper Milne in an unfavourable position.
A few weeks later, there was a similar incident affecting another boat from my constituency. This was the "Duncairn", skippered by Mr. George Baird. It was trawling off Aberdeen and was relatively close to port so that the tow was relatively short. Nevertheless, it was a serious matter for Skipper Baird and his crew in terms of the cost of repairs and the loss of fishing time.
I am sure that Skipper Baird and Skipper Milne will agree with me that potentially the most serious such incident occurred on 10th January 1976. It involved the "Honestas" from Peterhead, skippered by Mr. Mitchell Hughes. This incident not only involved heavy finan- 
Cial loss, but put at risk the crew and the vessel. Once again, the propeller was fouled by a 50-fathom rope. I am advised that the rope was 18 centimetres in diameter. It was attached to a star buoy which had no identifying marks.
The vessel was left helpless in a force 10 gale. When we hear radio forecasts and gale warnings, we should reflect that a force 10 gale is the most serious weather there is for a fishing boat, even with all engines going and with a propeller working properly. To be left in such a gale without a propeller is to be left in a most dangerous situation. It is just this side of miraculous that the boat was not sunk. It was five hours before it was towed back to Peterhead. I have not yet heard from Skipper Hughes of the financial consequences of this incident and I hope that I shall do so before very long, but it is clear that the dangers to which he and his crew were subjected were severe in the extreme.
In all three cases, the "Starella", the "Duncairn" and the "Honestas", I have been informed by the Scottish Office that there is no redress against the compensation fund as the fund covers only gear and nets and makes no provision for damage to vessels or loss of fishing time. This is scandalous and undermines the initial purpose that fishermen understood would be achieved when the fund was established. There is no other redress for the fishermen as the hawsers and buoys in these instances carried no identification.
I have raised this issue tonight to see whether the Government are prepared to take a tougher line with the oil companies and the contractors to protect the interests of the fishing industry. In particular I should like the Minister to answer the following questions.
Is he satisfied that the Government's powers in the Dumping at Sea Act and other legislation are adequate, or does he consider that the time has come for stronger powers to curb irresponsible dumping? Is he satisfied that the enforcement procedures in that Act and in other legislation are sufficiently effective?
It would be interesting to know how many visits are made to oil rigs, production platforms, pipe-laying barges and service vessels, and whether the visits are


scheduled or unannounced. What transport facilities exist for those making the visits? Do they have helicopters or reconnaissance aircraft at their disposal? What facilities are made available to them, or are they just a Cinderella service fitting in the visits when they have the time and when the people on the rigs, the platforms and service vessels know well in advance that they are coming?
Will the Minister say what procedure there is for following up complaints and how many prosecutions have ensued from those complaints? Is it not time to require the oil companies and those who service them to identify all of their equipment in some way, including buoys and hawsers, so that they can be required to face the consequences of their actions in a court of law? It seems to me that certainly buoys should have some clear form of identification. Surely, too, it is not beyond our wit to devise some form of code for hawsers to identify their owners so that we should know who was responsible.
The Minister made the point to me in a parliamentary Answer that perhaps it was not the oil companies which were responsible, that all sorts of people went to sea and dropped hawsers overboard. If we can get from the oil companies a clear undertaking and a clear set of procedures so that they identify all their equipment, that would eliminate them during any inquiry following an incident of this kind.
Until we do that I have to take the word of my skippers, who have traditionally fished in these areas without trouble difficulty and danger of this kind for many years. It is only now, since the oil developments started, that the troubles have arisen.
Will the Minister press for an extension of the compensation fund to cover the sort of cases I have referred to—the "Honestas", the "Starella" and the "Duncairn"—to meet the cost of damage to vessels as well as to nets and gear? It should also cover in some way the loss of fishing time, which is so vital to our fishermen today. There are many days when conditions will prevent them putting to sea, and every day at sea is especially precious in view of the restrictions imposed on fishing.
What efforts are the oil companies and the contractors making to eliminate these

difficulties? Do they realise the serious and sometimes near-fatal consequences of their irresponsibility in this matter?
The fishermen of Scotland are a strong and independent breed of men who are accustomed to facing danger every day in their struggle for a livelihood. It is quite intolerable that they should have to face additional danger arising from the carelessness and irresponsibility of those who should know better. I hope that in his reply the Minister will hold out some hope for the fishermen in dealing with these problems.

11.45 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Hugh D. Brown): The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) said that this was a historic day. I am not quite sure whether history will judge this Adjournment debate more important than the resignation of a Prime Minister. However, I accept that it is an important subject and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter on the Adjournment.
As the hon. Gentleman has said, he has written to me frequently about the cases he has mentioned tonight, and others. I say immediately that the Government take very seriously the difficulties encountered by the fishing industry, and are concerned to ensure that so far as possible they are kept to a minimum.
At the same time, I think it is fair to say that, having regard to the magnitude of the oil development operations, it would be unrealistic to expect that the fishing industry's problems which arise from these operations can all be made to disappear immediately, or that there will never be related incidents which cause concern to fishermen. The aim of all concerned, including the fishing industry itself, must be to understand and appreciate each other's difficulties and together to make steady progress towards seeking and finding solutions, many of which can be expected to call for compromise. It is gratifying and promising for the future that there have already been encouraging developments in this direction.
The consultative process is valuable in establishing and fostering good relationships between the industries. This allows an open discussion on matters of mutual


concern and ensures that misunderstandings and difficulties from lack of information can be avoided. Although there are many consultative meetings between representatives of the fishing industry and oil companies on particular developments—

Mr. Hamish Watt: Take your time.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman does not know how much I have to say. I want to do justice to this important subject. I should get extra time to compensate for that intervention.
Although there are many consultative meetings between representatives of the fishing and oil companies on particular developments such as the routing of submarine pipelines, where the fishermen's extensive knowledge of the sea-bed could work to the oil company's advantage, the main instrument in this consulative process is the Fisheries and Offshore Oil Consultative Group.
The group was set up by the Government in July 1974 to exchange information on general matters concerning the fishing and oil industries and to discuss broad principles with the object of enhancing close relations between the oil and fishing industries. The group meets at regular intervals and representation is drawn from Scottish and English fishing interests, the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association as well as various Government Departments.
The group has now been in operation for well over a year, and during that time its work in examining various general problems has been useful. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it has led to a better understanding between the two industries. In the group both industries have adopted a co-operative attitude in tackling some of the conflicts which existed and significant progress in reducing these has been made.
In July 1975 the group published a report of its first year of work. It was apparent that offshore oil activity created possible navigational hazards in the forms of drilling rigs, production platforms, seismic surveys and pipelaying operations, and after a detailed survey of the situation the group instituted the issue of weekly information bulletins and the daily broadcast of radio warnings at appropriate

times convenient to the fishermen and for their specific attention to complement the navigational warnings which the Hydrographer of the Navy issues to all mariners.
Another area of concern where progress has been made is that regarding the laying of buoys. A system of identification markings for buoys is in the process of being implemented so that those which break adrift can be readily identified, and again there have been improvements in the procedure for notification of buoys which break adrift as well as improvements in the inspection and maintenance of buoys. It is in matters such as these that the group has been successful in its aim of minimising interference.
The hon. Gentleman has stressed the serious concern and difficulties of fishery men whose gear is lost or damaged as the result of debris in the sea. I readily understand the feelings of fishermen in such circumstances but, while there remain problems, it is also fair to point to progress. The Consultative Group has devoted much attention to this particular aspect. It has promoted various educational measures by means of a poster and articles in oil industry magazines to bring home to the men on the supply ships, rigs and barges the message of good housekeeping.
It has to be recognised that accidents can occur and, with the severe weather conditions which can be experienced in the North Sea, particularly during the winter months, items of equipment and other material can be lost overboard. However, the oil companies share the general concern about debris, and it can be against their own interests if it accumulates on the sea-bed. They have issued strict instructions to all their personnel that all waste materials must be brought ashore for proper disposal. In essence, measures have aimed at the prevention of indiscriminate dumping.
I am satisfied that the powers are adequate and that enforcement as such is effective, given that it is a very difficult job which I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not seek to underestimate. I have to confirm that there have been no prosecutions. There have been one or two complaints, which we have followed up, but to date there have been no prosecutions. That is not to say


that we are discouraging anyone from making a complaint. However, that is the factual position.

Mr. Watt: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that most of our fishing constituents are concerned mainly with fishing and that they do not want to be hindered by spending their time appearing in court to argue against people who have dumped this stuff? They are concerned with getting on with their fishing. They realise that to do what the Minister says—to go to court and to specify the stuff which has been dumped—is to waste valuable fishing time.

Mr. Brown: That is a little unreasonable. I was not saying anything of the kind. I was merely saying that if anyone made a complaint, which presumably would not take a great deal of time, if there was evidence and the rest of it, the normal process would be for the Lord Advocate to be consulted. I was asked specifically how many prosecutions there had been. The answer is "None".
There has been a tangible recognition of the debris problem in the setting up by the United Kingdom Offshore Operators' Association of a compensation fund, effective from 1st July 1975, for damaged or lost gear from oil industry debris which could not be attributed to the activities of a particular company. This fund does not in any way remove the liability of individual oil companies in attributable cases. The evidence is that oil companies in such cases have been willing to offer settlements to cover the damage incurred, and to date my Department has been informed of 57 cases where oil companies have met claims for damaged fishing gear.
I think, therefore, that we are entitled to claim that there has been a modest degree of success, although I admit that the fund does not cover the point about damage to propellers caused by hawsers. This is a matter which I shall mention in a moment.
All claims for compensation are considered sympathetically, but inevitably some have been rejected simply because there was no reasonable evidence that the debris could be attributed to oil-related activities. This, I know, has been

very disappointing for the fishermen concerned, but it is a hard fact that the sea and sea-bed contain debris which is not oil-related and which can damage fishing gear, and it would be unreasonable to expect the oil companies to pay compensation in such circumstances. It is a matter for the fishing organisations to produce the evidence.
But what is the evidence? Is it only now, because of oil, that there has been damage to propellers? My information is that there has always been damage to propellers and that that is one reason why they have been given insurance cover. There will be more now. Nevertheless, it was a normal occupational hazard—

Mr. Watt: No.

Mr. Brown: —which could attract insurance cover because it was not an uncommon occurrence for propellers to be fouled. That was pre-oil days.
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East mentioned four vessels in particular. I am well aware of the case involving the "Starella," and I share the hon. Gentleman's concern in this matter. I accept that fishermen may, with some reason, assume that a fair amount of this kind of trouble is a result of oil-related activity. However, large ropes and hawsers are used for many other purposes, and once they are lost overboard, if they are synthetic, they have a long life and may be carried by currents and tides for many miles.
In these circumstances, it might be unreasonable to apportion all the blame to the oil industry. In fact, that incident occurred just off Aberdeen, and the victim could as easily have been an oil rig vessel. Indeed, we have knowledge of oil rig vessels having their propellers fouled by discarded fishing nets.
I am not blaming anybody. That is not my approach; nor is it the hon. Gentleman's approach. Nevertheless, I recognise that there is difficulty.
The damage to the other two vessels mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, the "Duncairn" and the "Honestas", is un-attributable as far as we are aware. We believe that claims have been made against insurance regarding the "Honestas" and the "Starella", but we


have no specific details. The "Starlight" incident happened in April 1974.
Damage to fishing vessels' propellers is not included in the compensation fund arrangements, for the reason I have given. Nevertheless, it is one of the issues which will be further discussed in the Fisheries and Offshore Oil Consultative Group. I hope that some arrangement can be worked out to ensure that fishermen do not suffer financially as a result of such incidents, but, as I have said, it is one of the more difficult subjects and at present there is no prospect of compensation unless the hawser can be positively identified.
I think that both the fishing industry and the oil companies have been constructive. It might be unreasonable to insist on the oil companies being the only outfits which should positively mark hawsers. Somebody might say that it was time that all craft at sea did that. I am sure that that would meet with some resentment considering the many problems

facing the fishing industry today. Therefore, we must be reasonable.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are anxious to ensure that the minimum of disruption is caused to fishing by the oil industry's operations. I am sure that fishermen, despite their difficulties, generally recognise that these operations are vital to the prosperity of the nation as a whole. I feel sure that, with the continuing good will of all concerned, further progress can be made towards achieving amicable working arrangements between the two industries.
That kind of spirit has been evident in the consultative group. With our blessing, encouragement and prodding, where necessary, I am sure that it will continue.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Twelve o'clock.